Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Bell

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

Toledo Bar Association v. Bell. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Bell (1997), ____Ohio St.3d _____.] 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Two-year suspension with second 
year of sanction stayed with conditions -- Changing fee 
schedule during case without informing client and refusing to 
complete case unless higher fee was paid -- Lying to client 
about commencement of case and failing to return unearned 
fees -- Failing to return papers client was entitled to receive -- 
Using epithets and racial slurs while representing a client to 
recover an animial from the dog warden. 
 
(No. 96-2432 -- Submitted December 11, 1996 -- Decided March 26, 
1997.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-86. 
 
On March 22, 1996, relator, the Toledo Bar Association, filed a “First 
Amended Complaint” alleging in four counts that Angelia D. Bell of 
Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0016851, respondent, violated 
several Disciplinary Rules.  After respondent filed an answer, relator and 
respondent stipulated to the allegations of the complaint and a psychiatric 
evaluation of respondent.  On September 19, 1996, a panel of the Board of 
 
2
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”) held a hearing, at which time the stipulation and medical report 
were received into evidence.  The respondent limited her testimony and 
exhibits to matters of mitigation. 
 
The panel found that in 1993, respondent undertook to represent 
Cynthia Bofia in a divorce and custody matter for a $500 retainer and $50 
an hour.  Thereafter, respondent refused to file a final judgment entry until 
her client paid the balance of her fees.  Respondent claims that the balance 
arose because she changed her hourly rate from $50 to $100 during the 
course of the case.  However, no evidence existed that Bofia, who believed 
she had paid respondent as agreed, had consented to the new rate.  The 
panel found that respondent had violated DR 2-110(A)(2) (withdrawing 
from employment without taking reasonable steps to avoid prejudice to the 
rights of the client), 2-110(A)(3) (failing to refund any part of an advance 
fee not earned), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter which had been 
entrusted to her), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of 
employment), and 7-101(A)(3) (prejudicing a client during the course of a 
professional relationship). 
 
3
 
The panel found that in July 1994, Kathy Lusher retained respondent 
to handle a child-support matter for which Lusher paid respondent a retainer 
of $500 and filing fees of $70.  Respondent missed appointments with 
Lusher, verbally abused her, and falsely told Lusher that the papers 
commencing her case had been filed with the court.  Later, respondent told 
Lusher that the papers had not been filed and that Lusher’s case had no 
merit.  When Lusher demanded a return of the fees, respondent refunded 
only one-half of the retainer plus the court costs.  The panel found that with 
respect to her representation of Lusher, respondent had violated DR 6-
101(A)(3), and 2-106(B)(4) and (6) (charging excessive fee in light of the 
results obtained and the nature and length of the professional relationship). 
 
The panel also found that Sheila Fleming retained respondent in 
October 1993, to prepare a consent decree in a paternity case involving the 
support of a minor child.  Fleming delivered her legal file from a previous 
attorney to respondent and paid respondent $300 of an agreed $500 legal 
fee.  After Fleming called her numerous times, respondent told Fleming that 
she had made a preliminary investigation, had prepared the consent decree 
and had it executed by the father of the child, and had been in contact with 
 
4
Fleming’s previous attorney, which was untrue.  Respondent then advised 
Fleming she would not complete the legal work until the balance of the 
retainer had been paid and refused to return Fleming’s legal file to her.  The 
panel found that in representing Fleming, respondent had violated DR 2-
110(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging 
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 9-
102(B)(4) (promptly delivering to the client property in the lawyer’s 
possession which the client is entitled to receive). 
 
The panel found that in October 1995, respondent appeared at the 
office of the county dog warden demanding the immediate release of a pit 
bull dog allegedly owned by one of respondent’s clients.  When the dog 
warden attempted to explain why the dog was being held, respondent 
screamed at him, yelling derogatory and racial slurs in the presence of his 
employees and visitors.  The panel found that these actions had violated DR 
1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on respondent’s fitness to 
practice law). 
 
Based on the hearing testimony, the psychiatric evaluation, letters of 
support from judicial officials, a client, and a psychologist, the panel found 
 
5
in mitigation that respondent surmounted a childhood of physical and sexual 
abuse to graduate from law school and undertake a solo practice, serving 
clients who have minimal financial resources and are on the fringe of 
society.  As a single mother, she helped both of her children to receive a 
college education.  The panel found that respondent abuses marijuana on a 
daily basis and has been treated for depression.  Her problems appeared to 
the panel to have been caused by a lack of organization and inadequate 
personal skills. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for two years with the suspension stayed on the condition 
that respondent reimburse Lusher and Fleming, return Fleming’s entire file, 
and either reimburse Bofia or file the judgment entry to conclude her 
representation of Bofia.  As additional conditions for a stay of the 
suspension, the panel recommended that respondent enter into an agreement 
with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program for treatment of substance abuse 
and comply with the agreement, undergo regular psychotherapy during the 
term of the suspension, and comply with a monitoring program as outlined 
in Gov.Bar R. V(9) with regular review of the monitoring.  The board 
 
6
adopted the panel’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, adding 
that the monitoring attorney shall report monthly to the relator. 
______________________________________ 
 
Dale W. Fallat and Harold M. Steinberg, for relator. 
 
Lorin J. Zaner, for respondent. 
______________________________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  “The guiding principle in * * * all our disciplinary 
proceedings * * * is the public interest and an attorney’s right to continue to 
practice a profession imbued with public trust.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Trumbo (1996), 76 Ohio St. 3d 369, 372, 667 N.E.2d 1186, 1188-1189.  Our 
Ethical Considerations state standards of  professional conduct towards 
which every lawyer should strive; our Disciplinary Rules specify a 
minimum level of conduct below which no lawyer should fall. 
 
The board has found that in a number of instances, respondent failed 
to meet even the minimum level of conduct.  In representing Bofia, 
respondent changed her fee schedule during the case without informing her 
client and then refused to complete her contract unless the higher fee was 
paid.  Respondent lied to her client Lusher about the commencement of the 
 
7
case and failed to return unearned fees.  As to Fleming, respondent failed to 
return to the client papers her client was entitled to receive.  Later, while 
representing a client to recover an animal from the dog warden, respondent 
lost control of her emotions and screamed epithets and racial slurs.  Our 
Disciplinary Rules require that a lawyer not intentionally fail to carry out a 
contract with her client or cause damage to the client.  They also require that  
a lawyer not lie to her clients or withhold papers from a client.  Our Ethical 
Considerations,  specifically EC 1-5, which encourages lawyers to maintain 
high standards of professional conduct, do not countenance the use of 
epithets and racial slurs. 
 
We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings of the board and 
its  conclusions with respect to the violation of specific Disciplinary Rules.  
Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for two years, but 
the second year of the suspension is stayed, provided that respondent enters 
into an agreement with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program for the 
treatment of substance abuse and during the entire two-year suspension 
complies with that agreement, undergoes regular psychotherapy during the 
term of the suspension, and complies with a monitoring program as outlined 
 
8
in Gov.Bar R. V(9).  The monitoring attorney will report monthly to the 
relator.  In addition, respondent shall immediately return Fleming’s entire 
legal file and within ninety days of the date of this order reimburse Bofia, 
Lusher, and Fleming.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., dissents and would impose the sanction 
recommended by the board. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY, J., dissents and would stay a two-year 
suspension of respondent.