Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Kramer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Kramer, 89 Ohio St.3d 321, 2000-Ohio-163.] 
 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. KRAMER. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Kramer (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 321.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with entire year stayed 
on condition — Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation — Failing to maintain complete records of all 
funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into lawyer’s 
possession and render appropriate account to client — Failing to 
promptly pay or deliver to client, when requested, funds, securities, or 
other properties in lawyer’s possession that client is entitled to receive. 
(No. 00-500 — Submitted April 26, 2000 — Decided July 12, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-20. 
 
On April 12, 1999, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging respondent, John C. Kramer of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0021366, with violating several Disciplinary Rules.  Respondent filed an answer, 
and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”) heard the matter on December 20, 1999. 
 
The panel found that respondent began representing Samuel Vallongo in 
September or October 1996 in regard to an automobile collision.  When 
respondent settled the action on behalf of Vallongo for $10,000, he deposited the 
settlement proceeds into his trust account on March 12, 1998, after deducting 
$1,951.25 for legal fees and expenses.  That same day, respondent distributed 
$4,325.25 to Vallongo, assuring him that he would pay Vallongo’s medical bills 
with the remainder of the settlement.  Respondent’s legal fee was not part of the 
remaining monies in the trust account. 
 
 
2 
 
Respondent, however, did not pay Vallongo’s medical bills until 
September 1998.  During the months of March to May 1998, respondent withdrew 
$3,108.65 from the trust account for his personal use without Vallongo’s 
knowledge or authority. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 9-102(A) (all 
funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law firm, other than advances for costs and 
expenses, shall be deposited in one or more identifiable bank accounts), 9-
102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and 
other properties of a client coming into the lawyer’s possession and render 
appropriate accounts to clients), and 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly pay or 
deliver to a client, as requested by the client, the funds, securities, or other 
properties in the lawyer’s possession that the client is entitled to receive).  The 
panel, however, did not find that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), as charged in the complaint. 
 
In mitigation, the panel found that in nineteen years of practice, 
respondent had never previously been charged with a violation of the Disciplinary 
Rules.  Further, the panel found that at the time that he mishandled his client’s 
funds, respondent was being treated for depression brought about by his father’s 
death.  Finally, the panel found that respondent replaced Vallango’s funds and 
paid the medical bills in full by September 1998.  Based on its findings and the 
mitigating factors, the panel recommended that respondent be publicly 
reprimanded. 
 
The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, but rejected the panel’s 
conclusions of law and recommendation of sanction.  The board concluded that 
respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), as well as DR 9-102(B)(3) and (4).  The 
board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 
 
 
3 
one year with the entire year stayed, upon the condition that respondent continue 
to see a psychologist/psychiatrist during the term of the suspension. 
__________________ 
 
Gordon R. Barry and David G. Grude, for relator. 
 
John C. Kramer, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  After review of the record, we adopt the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the board.  In imposing a sanction, we must 
consider the duty violated, the attorney’s mental state, the injury caused, and 
whether aggravating or mitigating factors exist.  See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Boychuk (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 93, 679 N.E.2d 1081. 
 
Relator did prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent had 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), and 9-102(B)(3) and (4).  However, at the time of the 
misconduct, respondent was seeing a counselor for depression due to his father’s 
death.  Respondent also settled the accounts of Vallongo’s medical bills, showed 
remorse, and cooperated fully with the investigation. 
 
Previously, we have stated that when an attorney has violated DR 1-
102(A)(4), he will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an 
appropriate period of time.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio 
St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240. Yet, we have made exceptions when the 
misconduct is an isolated incident and not a course of conduct in an otherwise 
unblemished legal career.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Eisenberg (1998), 81 Ohio 
St.3d 295, 296, 690 N.E.2d 1282, 1283.  In this case, we find respondent’s 
conduct to be an isolated incident in his nineteen years of practice.  Therefore, we 
agree with the board’s recommendation. Respondent is hereby suspended from 
the practice of law for one year, with the entire year stayed, upon condition that 
respondent undergo treatment for depression by a psychologist/psychiatrist for the 
duration of the suspension.  Failure to abide by this condition will subject 
 
 
4 
respondent to a reinstatement of the stayed suspension.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.