Title: Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fernandez

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fernandez, 99 Ohio St.3d 426, 2003-Ohio-4078.] 
 
 
LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. FERNANDEZ. 
[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fernandez, 99 Ohio St.3d 426, 2003-Ohio-
4078.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Conviction of 
unauthorized use of property — Failing to deliver money owed to clients 
until compelled to do so — Engaging in unethical conduct after a previous 
indefinite suspension from the practice of law — Failing to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 2003-0703 — Submitted June 4, 2003 — Decided August 13, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-61. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Yolanda B. Fernandez of Lorain, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0062647, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio on 
February 24, 1994.  On May 24, 2000, we indefinitely suspended respondent from 
the practice of law for disciplinary violations involving “a pattern of neglect 
involving multiple clients” and refusal to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary 
investigations.  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fernandez (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 82, 84, 
728 N.E.2d 1056. 
{¶2} 
On August 12, 2002, relator, Lorain County Bar Association, filed 
a four-count complaint against respondent for additional disciplinary violations.  
A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered 
the cause on the parties’ discipline-by-consent agreement.  See Section 11 of the 
Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
After considering joint stipulations of fact, the panel found that 
after her suspension, respondent failed to notify one client in writing of the 
termination of her legal practice and refused to refund any money owed to her 
client until November 2002, when she refunded $200.  Further, after being served 
with the grievance, respondent failed to respond to the grievance in writing as 
required by the rules of relator. 
{¶4} 
Based on stipulations of fact, the panel found with respect to 
another client that respondent from July 7, 2000, to June 19, 2001, failed to refund 
to that client the sum of $3,212.50, which belonged to that client.  Respondent 
refunded the money only after repeated requests by the client’s new counsel, after 
a grievance was filed, and after respondent was indicted on a charge of theft by 
deception.  Again respondent failed to respond to the grievance in writing as 
required by the rules of relator.  Ultimately, respondent pled guilty to the 
misdemeanor of unauthorized use of property, R.C. 2913.04, and was sentenced 
to 100 hours of community service. 
{¶5} 
Based on the stipulated facts, the panel found that respondent’s 
conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in conduct involving moral 
turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting 
on fitness to practice law), 2-110(A)(3) (failure to refund unearned fees), 6-
101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter), and 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry 
out a contract of employment), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate in a 
disciplinary investigation). 
{¶6} 
In considering the sanction, the panel noted that respondent was 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law when the acts giving rise to the 
grievance occurred.  Respondent clearly failed to deliver money owed to her 
January Term, 2003 
3 
clients until compelled to do so.  Thus, “[r]estitution, while eventually made, was 
not timely.”  Respondent presented no character evidence in mitigation. 
{¶7} 
The relator and respondent recommended that the current 
indefinite suspension from practice be continued.  The panel, however, 
“concerned about Respondent’s repeated unethical conduct after her suspension,” 
recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred.  The board added its 
finding that “Respondent willfully ignored the sanction imposed under her prior 
suspension.”  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommendation that respondent be disbarred.  The board further 
recommended that the costs of the proceedings be taxed to respondent. 
{¶8} 
We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  We further 
find that disbarment is appropriate in this case.  “[A]ccepting retainers and not 
refunding the unearned portions of them on request * * * [is] tantamount to a 
misappropriation of client funds and property.” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Glatki 
(2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 381, 384, 726 N.E.2d 993.  See, also, Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Nasrallah (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 143, 148, 761 N.E.2d 11 (“taking client 
retainers and failing to carry out contracts of employment is tantamount to theft of 
the fee from the client”), citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Sigall (1984), 14 Ohio 
St.3d 15, 17, 14 OBR 320, 470 N.E.2d 886. 
{¶9} 
The presumptive sanction for misappropriation of client funds is 
disbarment.  See Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 490, 2002-
Ohio-2490, 769 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 15.  Respondent’s conduct is particularly egregious 
here because we had indefinitely suspended her from the practice of law and she 
had no possible basis to retain these fees.  Respondent’s conduct is further 
aggravated by her failure to cooperate in relator’s investigation.  See Disciplinary 
Counsel v. France, 97 Ohio St.3d 240, 2002-Ohio-5945, 778 N.E.2d 573, ¶ 11 
(“respondent compounded the misconduct by ignoring repeated attempts to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
investigate his misconduct”).  Accordingly, respondent is permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Daniel A. Cook, for relator. 
 
Yolanda Fernandez, pro se. 
__________________