Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Schram

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Schram, 98 Ohio St.3d 512, 2003-Ohio-2063.] 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. SCHRAM. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Schram, 98 Ohio St.3d 512, 2003-Ohio-2063.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Charging an illegal fee 
— Failing to promptly pay client funds client is entitled to receive. 
(No. 2003-0360 — Submitted March 12, 2003 — Decided May 7, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-11. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Deborah C. Schram of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0025554, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978.  
On April 8, 2002, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a complaint charging 
respondent with having violated DR 2-106(A) (charging an illegal fee) and 9-
102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay a client funds the client is entitled to receive).  
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. 
{¶2} 
According to the agreement, respondent was retained by a client in 
February 2000 to handle the client’s divorce.  The client signed respondent’s 
contract for legal services, agreeing to pay respondent an hourly rate of $195 and 
also a $3,300 nonrefundable retainer.  The client paid respondent $3,300, of 
which respondent deposited $300 into a client trust account for court costs.  
Respondent deposited the remaining $3,000 in her office-operating account. 
{¶3} 
In the succeeding weeks, respondent began preparing the papers 
needed to initiate the divorce proceedings, spending approximately 2.5 hours of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
her time at a cost to her client of $487.50.  In March 2000, the client asked 
respondent to stop working on her case, apparently because the client wanted to 
attempt reconciliation.  In June 2000, the client spoke with respondent’s secretary 
and asked for an accounting of respondent’s services and the return of the 
unearned portion of her retainer. 
{¶4} 
Respondent’s secretary did not advise respondent of the client’s 
request for a billing statement and refund.  The secretary also did not tell 
respondent that her client called approximately 24 times over the next several 
months to renew this request.  On May 11, 2001, respondent received a certified 
letter from the client demanding an accounting and  refund.  By June 11, 2001, 
respondent had prepared the billing statement and a letter that she intended to 
send to her client along with the client’s refund.  Also on June 11, 2001, 
respondent received relator’s letter of inquiry about a grievance her client had 
filed.  Unsure of how to proceed, respondent decided to wait for relator’s 
guidance before contacting the client. 
{¶5} 
Initially, relator referred respondent and her client to a fee-dispute 
resolution committee; however, the client ultimately declined to participate.  
Within three months, respondent met with relator’s investigator and gave him a 
check reimbursing her client for $2,812.50.1 
{¶6} 
The parties agreed and the panel found that respondent had 
violated DR 2-106(A) by charging a nonrefundable fee not based on the factors in 
section (B) of the rule.  The parties also agreed and the panel found that 
respondent had violated DR 9-102(B)(4) by not promptly returning her client’s 
money. 
                                                 
1. 
The discipline-by-consent agreement actually identifies September 4, 2002, as the date of 
respondent’s remittance; however, the pleadings in this case establish that respondent did not wait 
for more than a year to act. 
January Term, 2003 
3 
{¶7} 
In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel 
considered that respondent had no prior disciplinary record, cooperated 
completely in the disciplinary proceedings, and made restitution to her client.  The 
panel also considered that respondent had not intended to keep more money than 
she earned from her client but rather had mistakenly relied on a fee contract 
modeled after an agreement she received through a continuing legal education 
course.  The panel further considered that respondent had taken steps to avoid 
missing telephone calls on account of her office staff. 
{¶8} 
The panel recommended the sanction suggested by the parties.  
The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶9} 
We agree with the board.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby 
publicly reprimanded for having violated DR 2-106(A) and 9-102(B)(4).  Costs 
are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG 
STRATTON and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Weisbrod & Dankof and David M. Rickert, for relator. 
 
Gary C. Schaengold, for respondent. 
__________________