Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda

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. Holda, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1469.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-1469 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. HOLDA. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1469.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client — One-year stayed suspension. 
(No. 2009-2080 — Submitted January 13, 2010 — Decided April 7, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-005. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Sheri Lynn Holda of Green, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0073993, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001.  
On November 29, 2006, we publicly reprimanded respondent for failing to 
maintain a retainer in a separate trust account, neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter, and failing to properly refund a retainer upon the termination of her 
representation of a client.  Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda, 111 Ohio St.3d 418, 2006-
Ohio-5860, 856 N.E.2d 973. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} In this case, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline recommends that we suspend respondent’s license to practice law for 
one year, with the suspension stayed upon certain conditions aimed at eliminating 
any monetary loss to the affected clients and preventing the recurrence of future 
disciplinary violations.  The board’s recommendation is based on its finding that 
respondent committed professional misconduct by failing to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in her representation of two clients and failing to 
promptly deliver her case file to one of the clients upon termination of her 
representation.  We agree that respondent committed the professional misconduct 
found by the board, and with a minor modification, we agree that the appropriate 
sanction is a conditionally stayed one-year suspension. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Akron Bar Association, charged respondent in a two-count 
complaint with violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct.  After 
respondent filed an answer in which she denied that she had committed any 
misconduct, the parties stipulated to certain facts and misconduct.  Specifically, 
the parties stipulated that in her representation of two clients, respondent violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client).  At a hearing before a three-member panel of 
the board, relator dismissed the remaining charges. 
{¶ 4} Relator recommended a one-year suspension, with the entire 
period stayed upon certain conditions, and respondent did not object to the 
recommendation.  After the hearing, the panel made findings of fact and 
conclusions of law and recommended that the board impose a one-year 
suspension, with the entire period stayed upon the following conditions:  (1) 
respondent shall contact the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and 
sign a contract with OLAP and follow its recommendations during the period of 
her stayed suspension, (2) a monitor chosen by relator shall monitor respondent 
during the stayed suspension, (3) respondent shall attend a law office management 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
program or seminar during her stayed suspension, and (4) respondent shall refund 
$1,000 to one of her clients and $1,500 to the other client.  The board adopted the 
panel’s findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
{¶ 5} The parties have not objected to the board’s report. 
Misconduct 
Count One – Estate Matter 
{¶ 6} In December 2007, a client retained respondent to handle a release 
from administration of his father’s estate.  The client signed probate documents 
and gave his father’s will to her along with a $1,000 retainer check.  Respondent 
deposited the check into her Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts account and 
withdrew the entire amount a few months later. 
{¶ 7} Respondent never filed any estate case on behalf of her client, and 
after the client terminated her representation and secured new counsel, the new 
attorney asked respondent in June 2008 for her case file, including the will.  
Respondent, however, did not give the file to the client’s new counsel until late 
September 2008. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the panel found that respondent’s 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3.  The panel further determined that based on 
her admission at the hearing, respondent also violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) 
(requiring a lawyer upon termination of representation to promptly deliver to the 
client papers and property belonging to the client).  Because respondent was 
originally charged in relator’s complaint with the latter violation, relator’s 
subsequent withdrawal of the charge at the disciplinary hearing did not preclude 
the panel from finding that respondent’s admission at the hearing provided the 
requisite clear and convincing evidence that she had violated the rule.  See Dayton 
Bar Assn. v. Millonig (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 403, 405, 704 N.E.2d 568. 
{¶ 9} The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct, as do we. 
Count Two – Custody Case 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 10} In June 2008, a client paid respondent a $1,500 retainer fee to 
pursue custody of the client’s grandchild.  Respondent filed a motion on behalf of 
her client and was notified of the date and time of a status hearing on the matter.  
She did not appear at the status hearing and did not advise either the court or her 
client that she would be arriving late. 
{¶ 11} Following the hearing, respondent agreed to file objections to the 
magistrate’s order in the case.  However, she failed to file timely objections to the 
order. 
{¶ 12} Respondent stipulated and the panel and board found that her 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3.  We adopt the board’s finding of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors in respondent’s case and reviewed 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  The sole aggravating factor found by the 
board was respondent’s prior public reprimand.  See Rules and Regulations 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”) 10(B)(1)(a). 
{¶ 14} In mitigation, the board determined that respondent established the 
absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, agreed to make restitution to each client 
by refunding their retainer fees, exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the 
disciplinary proceedings, and submitted letters and testimony from various 
individuals, including judges, attorneys, and clients, attesting to her good 
character.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b), (c), (d), and (e).  Most significantly, the 
board gave credit to respondent’s testimony that she had taken steps to prevent 
similar situations from occurring in the future by moving her practice into an 
office with another attorney who will monitor her work and provide a structured 
environment and support staff to assist her. 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
{¶ 15} The board determined that a conditionally stayed one-year 
suspension was appropriate based on comparable cases involving multiple 
offenses.  Cf. Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lowden, 105 Ohio St.3d 377, 2005-Ohio-2162, 
826 N.E.2d 836 (two-year conditionally stayed suspension for conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and failure to cooperate with a 
disciplinary investigation in addition to neglecting entrusted legal matters); 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Watson. 106 Ohio St.3d 298, 2005-Ohio-4983, 834 N.E.2d 
809 (six-month conditionally stayed suspension for misconduct including 
neglecting an entrusted legal matter). 
{¶ 16} We agree with the board’s recommended sanction but add the 
requirement that respondent shall refund the retainer fees paid by the clients by 
June 1, 2010, or the stay of the suspension will be lifted.  This case involves less 
egregious misconduct than that involved in Lowden but warrants a harsher 
sanction than that imposed on the attorney in Watson due to respondent’s previous 
discipline for similar misconduct. 
{¶ 17} Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio 
for one year, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that respondent 
shall (1) contact and sign a contract with OLAP and follow its recommendations 
during the period of the stayed suspension, (2) report to an attorney chosen by 
relator to monitor respondent during the stayed suspension, (3) attend a law office 
management program or seminar during the stayed suspension, and (4) refund 
$1,000 to her client in the estate matter and $1,500 to her client in the custody 
case by June 1, 2010.  If respondent fails to comply with the terms of the stay, the 
stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire one-year suspension.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
 
MOYER, 
C.J.,1 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
James M. Campbell, Patricia A. Vance, and Hardesty, Kaffen & 
Zimmerman and David Friedman, for relator. 
 
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.P., Peter T. Cahoon, and Dennis 
J. Bartek, for respondent. 
_____________________ 
                                                 
1.  The late Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer participated in the deliberations in, and the final 
resolution of, this case prior to his death.