Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hetzer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hetzer, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-5480.] 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-5480 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. HETZER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hetzer,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-5480.] 
Attorney misconduct, including failing to maintain an accurate record of funds 
held for each client and failing to safeguard funds held in escrow—Public 
reprimand. 
(No. 2013-0567—Submitted June 5, 2013—Decided December 19, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-004. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Nicholas Wayne Hetzer of Sylvania, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0031302, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978.  In 
February 2012, a probable-cause panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline certified that there was probable cause for filing 
relator’s three-count formal complaint, which alleged that Hetzer had committed 
multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct by (1) improperly 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
deducting his legal fee from marital funds he held in trust for a divorce client and 
the client’s spouse, (2) failing to safeguard the remaining escrowed funds and 
instead giving them directly to his client on the termination of their attorney-client 
relationship, (3) failing to timely deposit client funds into his client trust account, 
(4) failing to reconcile his client trust account on a monthly basis, and (5) failing 
to maintain accurate accounting statements for his client trust account. 
{¶ 2} The parties submitted a timely consent-to-discipline agreement in 
which Hetzer stipulated that he committed the charged misconduct and the parties 
agreed that a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  
The panel recommended that the agreement be adopted, but the board rejected it 
and returned the matter to the panel for further proceedings. 
{¶ 3} The parties submitted stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors.  After conducting a hearing and receiving 
additional evidence after the hearing regarding the disposition of the marital funds 
distributed to Hetzer’s former client, the panel made findings of fact and 
conclusions of law, and recommended that Hetzer be publicly reprimanded for his 
misconduct.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation 
of the panel.  Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we adopt the board’s 
findings of fact and misconduct and publicly reprimand Hetzer. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Mark McKarus retained Hetzer on July 13, 2009, to represent him 
in a domestic-relations matter.  At that time, McKarus gave Hetzer a $10,000 
retainer.  McKarus gave Hetzer an additional cash payment of $5,000 in 
September 2009, though Hetzer had not requested it.  Hetzer admitted that he 
never deposited the $5,000 payment in his client trust account and that his receipt 
of those funds is not reflected on the escrow summary sheet where he kept records 
of the funds received from and expended on behalf of McKarus.  He testified, 
however, that McKarus “got full and complete credit for that [$]5,000 in 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
subsequent bills.”  Hetzer also stipulated that he did not perform a monthly 
reconciliation of his client trust account. 
{¶ 5} On October 26, 2009, McKarus gave Hetzer a $64,762.12 check 
representing the proceeds from the sale of a marital asset—a boat.  Hetzer did not 
deposit that check until January 27, 2010—one day after McKarus gave him a 
$5,400 check representing the proceeds from the sale of a Jeep, which was also a 
marital asset.  Hetzer testified that there was no reason for the delayed deposit 
other than “general procrastination” and his belief that his relationship with 
McKarus might soon end. 
{¶ 6} McKarus terminated Hetzer’s representation on February 9, 2010.  
That day, Hetzer wrote a $4,277.50 check to himself for the balance of his fees, 
deducting that amount from the $70,162.12 in marital funds that he held on behalf 
of McKarus and his spouse.  In addition to admitting that he had deducted his fees 
from the marital assets he held in trust, Hetzer admitted that he also had issued a 
check for the remaining balance—$65,884.62—directly to McKarus.  Hetzer 
testified that when he advised McKarus that the funds needed to be turned over to 
his new counsel, McKarus insisted that Hetzer write the check out to him and that 
he would deliver it to his new attorney.  Stipulated exhibits submitted by the 
parties following the panel hearing show that the full $70,162.12 was ultimately 
deposited into the trust account of McKarus’s new counsel and that McKarus’s 
spouse suffered no financial harm as a result of Hetzer’s conduct. 
{¶ 7} Hetzer acknowledged that his conduct was improper and stated 
that if he was confronted with a similar situation in the future, he would handle 
the matter differently.  He suggested that he would get a pay-over order, transfer 
the funds into opposing counsel’s trust account, or establish a separate account to 
prevent the funds from going directly to the client. 
{¶ 8} Hetzer testified that he knew better than to withdraw his legal fees 
from escrowed funds or release escrowed funds directly to his client but that his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
actions were the result of anger, stupidity, and emotion.  He stated that he was “so 
exasperated” at the conclusion of his relationship with McKarus that he “just 
wanted to close the chapter [on the] case” and so he had done “a very stupid thing 
that [he] would not do again.” 
{¶ 9} The parties stipulated and the board found that Hetzer’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for each 
bank account, maintain the current balance for each client, and perform a monthly 
reconciliation), 1.15(e) (requiring a lawyer in possession of funds in which two or 
more persons claim an interest to hold those funds in his client trust account until 
the dispute is resolved), and 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable 
diligence in representing a client). 
{¶ 10} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and find that Hetzer violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 by failing to timely deposit McKarus’s $5,000 payment and the 
proceeds from the sale of marital assets into his client trust account and violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) by failing to hold McKarus’s property in an interest-bearing 
client trust account, separate from his own property.  He also violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2)(ii) by failing to maintain an accurate record of the funds 
he received on McKarus’s behalf, violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(5) by failing to 
reconcile his client trust account on a monthly basis, and twice violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(e)—first, by paying his own fees with funds that he held in 
escrow for the benefit of the McKaruses, and then, by releasing the remainder of 
the escrowed funds directly to his client. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 12} The parties stipulated that no aggravating factors exist in this case, 
and the board found none.  Mitigating factors include the facts that Hetzer does 
not have a record of prior discipline, made full and free disclosure to the board 
and maintained a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and 
submitted evidence of his strong character and reputation within the legal 
community.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (e).  Letters from four 
fellow attorneys generally describe Hetzer as a professional and competent 
attorney, and several note his volunteer service on the substance-abuse committee 
of the Toledo Bar Association.  A letter from Patricia Shordt Intagliata, director of 
the pro bono program for the Toledo Bar Association, thanks Hetzer for his 
service to the program. 
{¶ 13} Scott Mote, executive director of the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”), submitted a letter to the panel, identifying Hetzer as a 
personal friend and a key resource for OLAP in the northwestern part of the state.  
He testified regarding Hetzer’s involvement in the Lawyers Assistance 
Committee, a predecessor to OLAP, his participation in the formation of OLAP, 
and his ongoing volunteer work with the organization. 
{¶ 14} Comparing the facts of this case to those in Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. 
Helbling, 124 Ohio St.3d 510, 2010-Ohio-955, 924 N.E.2d 364, the parties urged 
the panel to recommend a public reprimand for Hetzer’s misconduct.  Helbling 
had deposited client funds into his trust account and issued a check for litigation 
expenses on behalf of the client.  But the check was returned for insufficient funds 
because Helbling had made several transfers of funds from his client trust account 
to his business account before the check was presented for payment.  Id. at ¶ 4-5.  
We found that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2)(iv) by failing to maintain a 
record of one client’s current balance and the trust account’s outstanding checks, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(3)(ii) by failing to maintain a record of which 
client’s funds were affected by each client-trust-account credit and debit, violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c) by failing to maintain a client advance for litigation 
expenses in his client trust account, and violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c) by causing 
a portion of one client’s funds to cover the expenses of another client.  Id. at ¶ 7.  
We publicly reprimanded Helbling, noting that there were no aggravating factors 
present and that mitigating factors included the absence of prior discipline, his 
cooperative attitude and full disclosure to the board, and his immediate action to 
rectify the consequences of his misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 8; see also BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d). 
{¶ 15} The panel and board found that this case is analogous to Helbling 
and recommend that we publicly reprimand Hetzer for his misconduct.  We adopt 
the board’s reasoning and agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate 
sanction for Hetzer’s misconduct. 
{¶ 16} Accordingly, Nicholas Wayne Hetzer is publicly reprimanded for 
violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2)(ii), 1.15(a)(5), and  1.15(e).  Costs 
are taxed to Hetzer. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
McKenny, Ernsberger & Grude, L.L.C., and David G. Grude; Law Offices 
of Margelefsky & Mezinko, L.L.C., and Vincent S. Mezinko; and Michael A. 
Bonfiglio, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Reminger Co., L.P.A., Nicholas D. Satullo, and Jonathan H. Krol, for 
respondent. 
________________________