Title: Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vagotis

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vagotis, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-806.] 
 
 
 
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. 2021-OHIO-806 
LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. VAGOTIS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vagotis, Slip Opinion No.  
2021-Ohio-806.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to advise a client in writing that client may be 
entitled to refund of fee denominated as “earned upon receipt” if the 
lawyer does not complete representation—Failure to disclose to client 
attorney’s failure to carry professional-liability insurance—Failure to 
hold client’s property in an interest-bearing client trust account—Failure 
to hold legal fees paid in advance in a client trust account—Public 
reprimand. 
(No. 2020-1193—Submitted January 27, 2021—Decided March 18, 2021.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2020-016. 
______________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Christina Nicole Vagotis, of Elyria, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0096246, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2017. 
{¶ 2} In a March 26, 2020 complaint, relator, Lorain County Bar 
Association, alleged that Vagotis violated multiple ethical rules while handling a 
single probate matter.  The parties submitted stipulations of fact, including 
misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors, and relator agreed to dismiss 
several alleged rule violations.  The parties agreed that a six-month stayed 
suspension was the appropriate sanction for Vagotis’s misconduct. 
{¶ 3} After a hearing, a three-member panel of the Board of Professional 
Conduct issued a report in which it found that Vagotis committed four of the 
seven stipulated rule violations, unanimously dismissed three others based on the 
insufficiency of the evidence, and recommended that Vagotis be publicly 
reprimanded for her misconduct.  The board adopted the panel’s report in its 
entirety.  Although relator initially objected to the board’s dismissal of two of the 
alleged rule violations, it later moved to withdraw those objections and we 
granted that motion. 
{¶ 4} After reviewing the record in this case, we adopt the board’s 
findings of misconduct and recommended sanction and publicly reprimand 
Vagotis for the misconduct described herein. 
Stipulated Facts and Misconduct 
{¶ 5} In March 2018, ten months after Vagotis was admitted to the 
practice of law, Troy Hill retained her to probate his late father’s estate.  Vagotis 
proposed a flat fee of $2,500, with a down payment of $500 and five monthly 
payments of $400.  The engagement letter that Vagotis presented to Hill did not 
inform him that Vagotis considered the fee to be earned upon receipt or that he 
could be entitled to a full or partial refund if she did not complete the work.  Hill 
signed the engagement letter and returned it to Vagotis with a $500 check, but 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
Vagotis never negotiated that check.  Hill later made three $400 payments, and 
Vagotis deposited those checks into her operating account.  Although Vagotis’s 
professional-liability-insurance coverage lapsed during the representation, she did 
not inform Hill of that fact. 
{¶ 6} Vagotis communicated with Hill on multiple occasions and 
performed some work on the estate.  She and Hill discussed the best course of 
action for disposing of the decedent’s home and vehicles, and Vagotis offered to 
assist Hill with the foreclosure proceeding against the decedent’s home.  Vagotis 
reviewed documents pertaining to the estate and prepared several rough drafts of 
the probate forms—though she did not file the documents with the court, because 
she was waiting for Hill’s sisters to return signed waivers of their right to 
administer the estate.  On April 19, 2019, Vagotis wrote to Hill to inform him that 
she would terminate the representation if she did not receive the documents by 
May 1, but at Vagotis’s disciplinary hearing, Hill testified that he did not receive 
the letter.  After Vagotis failed to respond to a couple of his text messages, Hill 
filed a grievance with relator. 
{¶ 7} The board found that Vagotis’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.5(d)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from charging a fee denominated as “earned upon 
receipt,” or “nonrefundable,” or in any similar terms without simultaneously 
advising the client in writing that the client may be entitled to a refund of all or 
part of the fee if the lawyer does not complete the representation), 1.4(c) 
(requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not maintain 
professional-liability insurance and obtain a signed acknowledgment of that 
notice from the client), 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).  We adopt these findings 
of misconduct. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 9} The parties stipulated and the board found that the sole aggravating 
factor present in this case is that Vagotis committed multiple offenses, Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(B)(4), though they all arose from a single undertaking.  As for mitigating 
factors, the parties stipulated and the board found that Vagotis had no prior 
discipline, did not act with a dishonest or selfish motive, voluntarily made 
restitution of the entire fee notwithstanding the fact that she had performed a 
significant amount of work for the client, and exhibited a cooperative attitude 
toward the disciplinary proceedings.  Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) through (4).  In 
addition, the panel was strongly influenced by Vagotis’s testimony regarding her 
sincere effort to pursue Hill’s legal matter, despite her lack of probate experience. 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated that a conditionally stayed six-month 
suspension was the appropriate sanction for Vagotis’s misconduct.  The board, 
however, determined that a public reprimand was more appropriate, given its 
unanimous dismissal of multiple alleged rule violations. 
{¶ 11} In support of that sanction, the board cites four cases in which we 
publicly reprimanded attorneys for misconduct comparable to that of Vagotis.  
See Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ernst, 154 Ohio St.3d 131, 2018-Ohio-3900, 111 
N.E.3d 1179 (attorney failed to act with reasonable diligence, failed to reasonably 
communicate with the client, and failed to deposit the retainer into his client trust 
account); Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Smith, 147 Ohio St.3d 419, 2016-Ohio-7469, 
66 N.E.3d 731 (attorney failed to advise the client in writing that he could be 
entitled to a refund of all or part of his flat fee if the attorney did not complete the 
representation, failed to deposit the unearned fee into his client trust account, and 
January Term, 2021 
 
5
failed to maintain required records regarding the funds held in that account); 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Harsey, 142 Ohio St.3d 97, 2015-Ohio-965, 28 N.E.3d 86 
(attorney neglected a criminal appeal and failed to reasonably communicate with 
the client, failed to communicate the nature and scope of his representation and 
the basis or rate of the fee to another client, and failed to deposit unearned fees 
into his client trust account); Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rucker, 134 Ohio St.3d 
282, 2012-Ohio-5642, 981 N.E.2d 866 (attorney failed to act with reasonable 
diligence, improperly charged a nonrefundable fee, and failed to deposit unearned 
client funds into a client trust account). 
{¶ 12} Having thoroughly reviewed the board’s findings of fact and 
conclusions of law, the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, and the 
sanctions we have imposed for comparable misconduct, we agree that a public 
reprimand is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, Christina Nicole Vagotis is publicly reprimanded for 
her misconduct.  Costs are taxed to Vagotis. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
O’Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora Co., L.P.A., Matthew A. Dooley, 
and Michael R. Briach, for relator. 
Christina Nicole Vagotis, pro se. 
_________________