Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmonds

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmonds, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5599.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-5599 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SIMMONDS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmonds, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-5599.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to act with reasonable diligence—Failure to 
comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests from clients for 
information—Failure to advise client that fee may be refundable if 
representation not completed—One-year suspension, fully stayed on 
conditions. 
(No. 2016-0259—Submitted April 5, 2016—Decided September 1, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the  
Supreme Court, No. 2015-047. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Rasheed Asani Simmonds of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0067797, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997.  In 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
August 2015, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint with the Board of 
Professional Conduct charging Simmonds with professional misconduct in three 
client matters.  The chairperson of the panel assigned to hear the matter granted the 
parties’ joint motion to waive a hearing, and the case was submitted to the panel on 
the parties’ agreed stipulations of fact, rule violations, and recommended sanction.  
The board has issued a report finding that Simmonds engaged in most of the 
charged misconduct and recommending that we sanction him with a one-year 
suspension, fully stayed on conditions. 
{¶ 2} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of 
fact and misconduct and its recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
Count one—the Mary Baskin matter 
{¶ 3} In May 2012, Mary Baskin paid Simmonds $1,500 to file with the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) a charge of discrimination 
against her former employer.  About two months later, Baskin e-mailed Simmonds 
seeking an update on her case.  In response, Simmonds wrote that he would send 
her a draft of the EEOC charge, but he failed to draft or forward the document.  
Four months later, Baskin again e-mailed Simmonds requesting information about 
her case.  Simmonds, however, failed to respond.  He likewise failed to respond to 
e-mails that Baskin sent him in February 2013 and January 2014.  In May 2014—
two years after she first retained him—Baskin contacted Simmonds, and he told her 
that he would set up a meeting.  Simmonds later admitted that he failed to file 
Baskin’s complaint within the applicable statute of limitations.  He also failed to 
refund any portion of her $1,500 retainer. 
{¶ 4} Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated and the board found that 
Simmonds violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable 
diligence in representing a client) and 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from a client).  We 
agree with these findings of misconduct. 
Count two—the Dawn Jones matter 
{¶ 5} In June 2014, Dawn Jones retained Simmonds to represent her in an 
employment matter, and she signed a fee agreement in which she agreed to pay 
both a contingency fee and an “upfront, flat fee of $1,750.”  Contrary to the 
provision in Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3) regarding fees denominated as “earned upon 
receipt” or in similar terms, Simmonds did not advise Jones that if he did not 
complete his representation, she might be entitled to a refund of all or part of that 
upfront, flat fee.  Jones paid $975 toward the flat fee.  About a month after engaging 
Simmonds, she sought an update on her case.  Simmonds told her that he would 
have a draft complaint ready within a couple of weeks.  About a month later, Jones 
e-mailed Simmonds, again asking about the status of her case, and Simmonds 
responded that he would expedite the matter. 
{¶ 6} However, after another month during which Simmonds failed to 
contact Jones, she asked him about a refund and about pursuing her case pro se.  
Simmonds agreed to refund her fee, but he failed to do so, even though Jones called 
him several times attempting to secure at least a partial refund of her money. 
{¶ 7} Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated and the board found that 
Simmonds violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(4), and 1.5(d)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from charging a fee denominated as “earned upon receipt” or in similar terms 
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).  We agree. 
Count three—the Tonya Bowman matter 
{¶ 8} In 2013, Simmonds represented Tonya Bowman in a civil suit against 
a doctor and his medical group.  Simmonds settled Bowman’s claim with the 
medical group and successfully tried the case against the doctor.  The medical 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
group, however, began making late payments on the settlement award, and 
Simmonds filed a motion to enforce the settlement.  Bowman thereafter attempted 
to contact Simmonds on numerous occasions, requesting information about the 
settlement, an accounting of and receipts for all settlement payments, and an update 
regarding how he planned to collect the judgment against the doctor.  Simmonds, 
however, failed to respond to Bowman’s messages. 
{¶ 9} Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated and the board found that 
Simmonds violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4).  We agree with this finding of 
misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, 
relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in similar 
cases.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A). 
Aggravating and mitigating factors 
{¶ 11} The board found the following aggravating factors:  Simmonds 
engaged in multiple offenses, he failed to pay restitution, and by failing to file 
Baskin’s EEOC charge within the statute of limitations, he harmed a client’s case.  
See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4), (8), and (9).  In mitigation, the board found that he 
had no prior discipline, he lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, and he 
acknowledged the wrongful nature of his conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) 
and (2).  The parties stipulated that Simmonds’s misconduct was partially caused 
by a mental-health disorder and that he has signed a three-year contract with the 
Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”).  The board concluded, however, that 
no other evidence was presented regarding the disorder and that even the parties 
recognized that the disorder did not meet the requirements of Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(7) to qualify as a mitigating factor. 
 
 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
Applicable precedent 
{¶ 12} To support its recommended sanction of a conditionally stayed one-
year suspension, the board cites Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Fonda, 138 Ohio 
St.3d 399, 2014-Ohio-850, 7 N.E.3d 1164.  In that case, the attorney neglected two 
clients’ cases, failed to reasonably communicate with those clients, and failed to 
take reasonable steps to protect their interests after the representation terminated.  
Id. at ¶ 5-25.  Similar to the circumstances here, the attorney in Fonda had no prior 
discipline and lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, and although the board 
recognized that he had been diagnosed with a mental disorder and had entered into 
an OLAP contract, the attorney’s disorder did not qualify as a mitigating factor 
under the board’s regulations.  Id. at ¶ 27-28.  Consequently, we suspended the 
attorney in Fonda for one year but stayed the suspension on conditions, including 
that he make restitution and remain in compliance with his OLAP contract.  Id. at 
¶ 37. 
{¶ 13} We agree with the board that the facts and circumstances in Fonda 
are analogous to this case and that a similar sanction is therefore warranted.  See 
also Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Yakubek, 142 Ohio St.3d 455, 2015-Ohio-1570, 32 
N.E.3d 440, ¶ 14 (noting several cases in which we “imposed one-year stayed 
suspensions on attorneys who neglected a few client matters, failed to reasonably 
communicate with clients, and either failed to cooperate in relator’s investigation 
or failed to promptly deliver funds to which their clients were entitled”). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 14} Having considered Simmonds’s ethical infractions, the aggravating 
and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in comparable cases, we adopt 
the board’s recommended sanction.  Rasheed Asani Simmonds is hereby suspended 
from the practice of law for one year, with the entire suspension stayed on the 
conditions that he (1) remain engaged with OLAP and comply with the terms and 
conditions of his OLAP contract, (2) provide proof to relator within 90 days of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
court’s disciplinary order that he has paid restitution to Mary Baskin in the amount 
of $1,500 and to Dawn Jones in the amount of $975, (3) refrain from any further 
misconduct, and (4) pay the costs of these proceedings.  If Simmonds fails to 
comply with any condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the 
entire one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Simmonds. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald M. Scheetz, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Rasheed Asani Simmonds, pro se. 
_________________