Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schmelzer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SCHMELZER. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schmelzer (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension stayed on condition — 
Continuing multiple employment when the exercise of independent judgment 
is likely to be adversely affected unless each client consents after full 
disclosure. 
(No. 98-1310 — Submitted August 19, 1998 — Decided January 13, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-110. 
 
In July 1994, John LaRussa, who had a contract to purchase real estate from 
Clay and Lillian Ryant, informed his attorney, respondent Thomas Schmelzer of 
Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0032560, that he had agreed to 
purchase real estate from the Ryants.  LaRussa asked respondent to negotiate with 
the mortgagee to release its lien on the property.  At about the time that respondent 
began to negotiate with the mortgagee, the Ryants, at LaRussa’s suggestion, called 
him, stating that they were in financial trouble.  They also said that Clay Ryant’s 
former employer intended to pay off the mortgagee, take title to the property, and 
lease it back to the Ryants.  Deciding that the sale to the former employer was 
more advantageous to the Ryants than a sale to LaRussa, respondent, without 
informing LaRussa, began to represent the Ryants in the sale of the property to the 
former employer and in criminal matters relating to Clay Ryant. 
 
Respondent filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case on behalf of the Ryants to 
stop the mortgagee’s foreclosure action.  He then prepared a deed from the Ryants 
to the former employer and an assignment of mortgage by the mortgagee to the 
former employer. 
 
2
 
On December 9, 1996, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging that respondent’s conduct violated DR 5-105(B) (a lawyer 
shall not continue multiple employment if the exercise of his independent 
judgment is likely to be adversely affected unless each client consents after full 
disclosure).  Respondent filed an answer, and the matter was heard by a panel of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”). 
 
The panel concluded that respondent had violated the Disciplinary Rule as 
charged, as well as DR 5-105(A) (a lawyer shall decline employment if the 
exercise of his independent judgment is likely to be adversely affected unless each 
client consents after full disclosure), and recommended that he be suspended from 
the practice of law for six months with the entire six months stayed.  During the 
stay, respondent would be on probation and required to complete six hours of 
instruction in legal ethics and professionalism in addition to his normal 
Continuing Legal Education requirements.  The board adopted the findings, 
conclusion, and recommendation of the panel. 
 
Robert Miller and Steven Ott, for relator. 
 
Thomas Schmelzer, pro se. 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and the conclusion of the board as to a 
violation of DR 5-105(B) only.  We adopt the recommendation of the board.  
Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six months with the 
entire six months stayed.  During the stay, respondent will be on probation and 
required to complete six hours of instruction in legal ethics and professionalism in 
addition to his normal Continuing Legal Education requirements.  Costs are taxed 
to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
3
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.