Title: Geauga Cnty. Bar Ass'n v. Snyder

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Snyder, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3688.] 
 
 
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-3688 
GEAUGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SNYDER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Snyder,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3688.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to advise in writing that client may be entitled to 
refund of flat-fee retainer if lawyer does not complete representation—
Public reprimand. 
(No. 2012-2074—Submitted February 6, 2013—Decided September 4, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-099. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Timothy Harry Snyder of Burton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0065926, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1996.  In 
an 11-count amended complaint, relator, Geauga County Bar Association, alleged 
that Snyder committed 18 violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including charging excessive and nonrefundable fees in several client matters, as a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
result of his activities in connection with a paralegal support company and with 
out-of-state counsel.  The parties eventually submitted detailed stipulations that 
for the most part state facts.  Some of the stipulations, however, specify that the 
parties disagree on certain matters.  The stipulations do not include any admitted 
violations.  At the start of a hearing conducted before a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, relator withdrew five alleged 
violations.  The remaining allegations were fully heard. 
{¶ 2} Following the hearing, the panel concluded that relator proved 
three violations and recommended dismissal of the remaining alleged violations 
as not proved by clear and convincing evidence.  The board agreed with and 
adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of a 
public reprimand.  No objections have been filed. 
{¶ 3} Upon our independent review of the record, we adopt the board’s 
findings of fact and misconduct and agree that the appropriate sanction is a public 
reprimand. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Relator alleged that Snyder charged excessive and nonrefundable 
fees, improperly shared fees with out-of-state counsel, engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law, failed to supervise nonlawyers in a connected 
paralegal support company, and failed to disclose to his clients his relationship 
with the paralegal support company.  At the beginning of the hearing, relator 
withdrew some allegations of violations contained in several counts and withdrew 
two counts in their entirety. 
{¶ 5} The board ultimately found that relator proved that Snyder violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 7.3(c)(3) (requiring a written communication from a lawyer 
soliciting professional employment from a prospective client to conspicuously 
include in its text and on the outside envelope the recital “ADVERTISING 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
MATERIAL” or “ADVERTISEMENT ONLY”), 1.5(d)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from charging a fee denominated as “earned upon receipt” or “nonrefundable” 
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), and 1.5(e) (permitting attorneys who are not in the same firm to 
divide fees only if the fees division is reasonable and proportional to the work 
performed, the client consents to the arrangement in writing after full disclosure, 
and a written closing statement is prepared and signed by the client and each 
lawyer).  The panel recommended dismissal of the remaining original allegations 
in addition to those withdrawn at the hearing, and the board adopted that 
recommendation.  We accept the recommendation to dismiss all alleged violations 
except for the three that were found to have merit. 
{¶ 6} The stipulated facts and evidence relevant to the three proven 
violations demonstrate that Snyder, doing business as Snyder Professional Law 
Services (“SPLS”), promoted SPLS as a foreclosure-defense firm with “of 
counsel” relationships with out-of-state attorneys.  SPLS’s office letterhead 
indicated these “of counsel” relationships. 
{¶ 7} Snyder shared office space with Performing Investment 
Corporation (“PIC”), a business that provided paralegal and support services for 
Snyder, including interacting with clients on the phone, compiling information, 
and contacting lenders regarding mitigation options.  PIC employed a former 
Ohio attorney who had resigned from the practice of law in 2004 with disciplinary 
action pending.  One of the stipulations acknowledges both Snyder’s assertion 
that he retained full supervision over the former attorney and relator’s 
disagreement with that assertion.  PIC contracted with a marketing firm that 
assisted Snyder in attracting potential clients.  Solicitation letters were sent to 
homeowners who were behind in their mortgage payments.  Although the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
envelopes conspicuously showed that the enclosed letter was an advertisement, 
the letters themselves did not conspicuously include in their text the capitalized 
recital “ADVERTISING MATERIAL” or “ADVERTISEMENT ONLY.”  See 
Prof.Cond.R. 7.3(c)(3). 
{¶ 8} As part of his representation, Snyder would enter into a fee 
agreement with the client and SPLS that provided for a flat fee that was deemed 
earned in full upon the opening of the file and provided that no refunds would be 
made.  The fee agreement also contained a provision that stated:  “Client has the 
right to terminate this Agreement by notifying the SPLS in writing.  Fees earned 
shall be retained * * *.”  Snyder testified at the disciplinary hearing that the cost 
to the clients for representation ranged from $1,595 to $2,295.  Of the contract fee 
amounts for out-of-state cases, between $200 and $500—depending on the 
state—would be sent to the attorney outside of Ohio who was listed as “of 
counsel” for that particular state.  Snyder generally retained $300 for each client, 
with the balance of the client’s payment going to PIC for its services. 
{¶ 9} We adopt the board’s findings and conclusions with regard to 
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3), 1.5(e), and 7.3(c)(3). 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties violated, the actual injury 
caused, the existence of any aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B), 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; 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 
N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 11} Snyder’s ethical breaches concerning the deficient solicitation 
letters and fee matters are identified above.  The board found as mitigating factors 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
Snyder’s absence of a prior disciplinary record, his lack of a dishonest or selfish 
motive, his numerous voluntary refunds to his clients notwithstanding the 
language in the fee agreements, his full and free disclosure and cooperative 
attitude toward the proceedings, and his good character and reputation.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).  The board further found that 
no clients were harmed by Snyder’s misconduct and that he had voluntarily 
terminated his relationship with PIC. 
{¶ 12} The board found as aggravating factors that Snyder engaged in a 
pattern of misconduct and committed multiple offenses.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  The board found as additional aggravating factors that 
Snyder should have recognized that his out-of-state solicitation letters were 
misleading as to his ability to practice in those states and that he should have 
registered with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel his employment, contractual, or 
consulting relationship with a disqualified attorney.  See Gov.Bar R. V(8)(G)(3). 
{¶ 13} With regard to the violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3), the board 
cited two cases as precedent for its recommendation of a public reprimand.  In 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Freedman, 128 Ohio St.3d 497, 2011-Ohio-1959, 946 N.E.2d 
753, we imposed a public reprimand on an attorney who was found to have 
violated three Professional Conduct Rules, including Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3), 
when he did not execute a written fee agreement and did not advise his clients that 
they might be entitled to a refund of all or part of the fee if he did not complete 
the representation.  Id. at ¶ 3.  Mitigating factors included no prior disciplinary 
record in almost 30 years of practice, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, 
respondent’s full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board, his expression of 
remorse, and his character and reputation.  Id. at ¶ 8. 
{¶ 14} The board additionally cited Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Seibel, 132 
Ohio St.3d 411, 2012-Ohio-3234, 972 N.E.2d 594, in which we also imposed a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
public reprimand, as instructive regarding a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3).  
In that case, the respondent also was found to have violated three other rules when 
he accepted two nonrefundable retainers from his client, failed to deposit those 
retainers into his trust account, failed to return his client’s file and provide an 
accounting after being terminated, and failed to reduce his contingent-fee 
agreement to writing.  Id. at ¶ 8.  Mitigating factors included lack of a prior 
disciplinary record, acceptance of responsibility, cooperation with the disciplinary 
investigation, and restitution.  Id. at ¶ 11, 14. 
{¶ 15} In discussing sanctions for the remaining two violations, the board 
stated that each warranted a sanction “of a low level” primarily because neither 
violation caused harm to any client, but did not identify any precedent.  We have 
not imposed discipline based on a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 7.3(c)(3).  As to a 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(e), in Toledo Bar Assn. v. Johnson, 121 Ohio St.3d 
226, 2009-Ohio-777, 903 N.E.2d 306, we imposed a six-month suspension, stayed 
on the condition that the attorney commit no further misconduct, for violations of 
DR 2-107(A) (now Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(e)) and three other rules.  The attorney in 
that case paid 35 percent of a $9,800 legal fee to another lawyer with whom he 
was not formally associated, on two occasions collected a clearly excessive fee, 
and committed two violations of the Disciplinary Rule requiring a lawyer to 
deposit client funds in a separate identifiable bank account.  Id. at ¶ 3-8.  Given 
the number of violations and the severity of their nature, the sanction in Johnson 
is distinguishable from that appropriate here. 
{¶ 16} A public reprimand here is consistent with our precedent involving 
cases of similar misconduct and aggravating and mitigating factors.  Accordingly, 
we accept the board’s recommendation and hereby publicly reprimand Timothy 
Harry Snyder for his violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3), 1.5(e), and 7.3(c)(3).  
Costs are taxed to Snyder. 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Todd Petersen and Patricia J. Schraff, for relator. 
Timothy H. Snyder, pro se. 
________________________