Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Glitzenstein

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Glitzenstein, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-3862.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-3862 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. GLITZENSTEIN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. Glitzenstein, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-3862.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including client-trust-account mismanagement—Conditionally stayed 18-
month suspension. 
(No. 2018-0255—Submitted February 27, 2018—Decided September 26, 2018.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2017-033. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jonell Rae Glitzenstein, of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0061889, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1993. 
{¶ 2} In a formal complaint certified to the Board of Professional Conduct 
on June 29, 2017, relator, Akron Bar Association, charged Glitzenstein with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
multiple ethical violations.  The alleged violations arose from her failure to properly 
use and maintain her client trust account, reasonably communicate with a client, 
protect the interests of two clients on the termination of her representation, and 
promptly refund an unearned fee.  A panel of the board considered the cause on the 
parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Gov.Bar R. V(16). 
{¶ 3} The parties stipulated that Glitzenstein received more than $180,000 
in client funds from January 2013 through mid-March 2017.  Although a substantial 
portion of those funds represented retainers and cost advances, she did not deposit 
them into her client trust account and thereby violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) 
(requiring a lawyer to hold the property of clients in an interest-bearing client trust 
account, separate from the lawyer’s own property) and 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer 
to deposit into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in 
advance).  She failed to maintain ledger sheets for her clients documenting the 
funds she held on their behalf and failed to maintain other required records for her 
client trust account in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to 
maintain a record for each client that sets forth the name of the client; the date, 
amount, and source of all funds received on behalf of the client; and the current 
balance for each client) and 1.15(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for 
the lawyer’s client trust account, setting forth the name of the account; the date, 
amount, and client affected by each credit and debit; and the balance in the account). 
{¶ 4} In addition, Glitzenstein failed to respond to one client’s messages 
stating that she no longer wanted to proceed with her divorce and waited nearly two 
years to refund the unearned portion of that client’s retainer.  She also failed to 
return another client’s original documents—even after relator informed her that 
there was no need for her to retain those documents.  The parties stipulated that this 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as 
practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client), 1.16(d) 
(requiring a lawyer withdrawing from representation to take steps reasonably 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
practicable to protect a client’s interest), and 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to 
promptly refund any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from 
employment). 
{¶ 5} The parties agree that three aggravating factors are present: 
Glitzenstein acted with a selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, and 
committed multiple offenses.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2), (3), and (4).  Stipulated 
mitigating factors include the absence of prior discipline, a cooperative attitude 
toward the disciplinary proceedings, and Glitzenstein’s November 28, 2017 
execution of a two-year contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
(“OLAP”).  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and (4). 
{¶ 6} The board recommends that we adopt the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement and suspend Glitzenstein from the practice of law for 18 
months, all stayed on conditions. 
{¶ 7} Of the four cases that the parties cited in support of their stipulated 
sanction, the board found Disciplinary Counsel v. Barbera, 149 Ohio St.3d 505, 
2017-Ohio-882, 75 N.E.3d 1248, to be most instructive.  Barbera’s misconduct was 
similar to Glitzenstein’s in that it involved the mismanagement of his client trust 
account.  But in addition to failing to maintain appropriate records, Barbera 
commingled personal and client funds based on his erroneous belief that all of the 
money coming into his practice—including money he had already earned—had to 
be deposited in his client trust account.  He also failed to cooperate in the relator’s 
investigation.  We suspended Barbera from the practice of law for one year, all 
stayed on the conditions that he obtain additional continuing legal education 
(“CLE”) focused on client-trust-account management, comply with an OLAP 
contract for his diagnosed mental disorders, and serve a period of monitored 
probation. 
{¶ 8} The board reviewed additional cases in which we imposed fully 
stayed suspensions for comparable misconduct on the condition that the attorneys 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
obtain additional education and monitoring to ensure the institution and 
maintenance of good practice habits.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnston, 
121 Ohio St.3d 403, 2009-Ohio-1432, 904 N.E.2d 892 (imposing a one-year 
suspension, stayed on conditions including a period of monitored probation and 
completion of CLE in law-office management and accounting, for misconduct 
involving the commingling of personal and client funds in and multiple overdrafts 
of the attorney’s client trust account).  The board also noted that actual suspensions 
are typically reserved for client-trust-account violations that involve elements of 
dishonesty or client harm that are not present in this case.  See, e.g., Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Vogtsberger, 119 Ohio St.3d 458, 2008-Ohio-4571, 895 N.E.2d 158 
(imposing a two-year suspension with one year stayed on an attorney who deposited 
personal funds into his client trust account to shield the funds from creditors); 
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Scaccia, 141 Ohio St.3d 35, 2014-Ohio-4278, 21 N.E.3d 290 
(imposing a one-year suspension with six months stayed on an attorney who 
mismanaged and neglected a case resulting in its dismissal, used client retainers to 
pay expenses without providing adequate documentation, failed to maintain 
required client-trust-account records, and failed to make restitution to all of the 
affected clients). 
{¶ 9} Based on the foregoing, we agree that Glitzenstein’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2), 1.15(a)(3), 1.15(c), 1.4(a)(4), 1.16(d), and 1.16(e) 
and that an 18-month suspension stayed in its entirety is the appropriate sanction 
for that misconduct.  We therefore adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline 
agreement. 
{¶ 10} Accordingly, Jonell Rae Glitzenstein is suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for 18 months, all stayed on the conditions that she comply with her 
November 28, 2017 OLAP contract and any extension thereto; complete at least six 
hours of CLE (in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X) focused on law-
office management, the proper use of a client trust account, and the proper 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
maintenance of client-trust-account records; complete an 18-month period of 
monitored probation with a focus on law-office management and compliance with 
client-trust-account requirements; and engage in no further misconduct.  If 
Glitzenstein fails to comply with a condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and 
she will serve the full 18-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to Glitzenstein. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, and 
DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 
DEWINE, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
Roderick, Linton, Belfance, L.L.P., and Robert M. Gippen; Deborah L. 
Ruby, Co., L.P.A., and Deborah L. Ruby; and Wayne M. Rice, Bar Counsel, for 
relator. 
Montgomery, Rennie, & Jonson, L.P.A., George D. Jonson, and Linda L. 
Woeber, for respondent. 
_________________