Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Baas

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. BAAS. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Baas (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 293.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with last eighteen months 
of suspension stayed — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failing to 
carry out contract of employment — Failing to segregate funds — Failing 
to refund unearned advance fees promptly after withdrawing from 
employment — Failing to promptly return funds client is entitled to receive 
— Withdrawing from representation without taking steps to ensure client is 
not prejudiced — Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation — Knowingly making a false statement of law or fact 
while representing client — Abuse of alcohol — Failing to register with 
Supreme Court — Rendering legal services while not in active status as an 
attorney — Failing to comply with legal education requirements. 
(No. 96-2481 — Submitted May 6, 1997 — Decided July 30, 1997.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, Nos. 95-90 and 96-12. 
 
On December 4, 1995, relator Cincinnati Bar Association filed a complaint 
in case No. 95-90 charging that respondent, Patricia A. Baas of Cincinnati, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0020876, repeatedly disregarded her obligations as an 
attorney and thus violated Disciplinary Rules on five separate occasions.  On 
February 5, 1996, relator Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court 
filed in case No. 96-12 another complaint charging that respondent violated 
additional Disciplinary Rules.  The complaints were consolidated on March 12, 
1996. 
 
On June 19, 1996, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) heard testimony and received 
 
2
stipulations of the parties.  The panel found that in October 1991, respondent, 
having been retained by the heirs of Emma P. Shupp, filed an application to 
administer Shupp’s estate.  Respondent advised the heirs that the administration of 
the estate was a simple matter which would be closed within a year.  But 
respondent took no action in the case from early 1993 through December 1, 1995 
despite repeated telephone calls by the heirs and respondent’s promises to take 
action.  The probate court issued delinquency notices to respondent, once in 
February 1994 and later in July 1995, because respondent failed to file a required 
partial accounting.  On May 10, 1996, the estate still remained open. 
 
The panel further found that in May 1993, Edgar Miller engaged respondent 
to probate the estate of his deceased wife.  Respondent deposited Miller’s $245 
retainer check in her commercial checking account.  The wife’s only probate asset 
was her one-half interest in the real estate she owned with Miller.  From June 1993 
until July 1994, respondent made no filings until the probate court issued a show 
cause order.  From June 1993 through January 1995, respondent failed to return 
Miller’s phone calls or replied to them with promises of action that never was 
taken.  Only after relator served respondent with a grievance did respondent close 
the estate in April and May 1995.  
 
The panel also found that in March 1994, respondent received $500 from 
Dana Kondovska, who had a limited ability to speak English, to represent her in 
the probate of her father’s estate.  Respondent deposited the money in a 
commercial checking account.  During the remainder of 1994, despite numerous 
requests, respondent failed to answer calls from friends representing Kondovska 
inquiring about the case and failed to communicate with the attorney for the estate.  
Respondent also did not respond to Kondovska’s request for a refund of the $500 
until finally she returned that amount in March 1995. 
 
3
 
The panel found that in October 1994, respondent received a retainer of 
$1,500 from Enrico W. Lanza to represent him in a divorce action brought by his 
wife.  After respondent deposited the retainer in a commercial checking account, 
she failed to make a court filing as promised to the wife’s counsel.  As a result of 
respondent’s failure to act, a support order was entered requiring Lanza to pay 
$1,300 a month.  Later testimony indicated this sum was clearly an excessive 
amount, and thus Lanza suffered losses he would not otherwise have suffered.  
Respondent failed to answer Lanza’s numerous inquiries about the support order 
and failed to respond to Lanza’s demand for a return of the $1,500 retainer until 
March 1995.  
 
The panel also found that in February 1994, Jennifer S. Barlow gave 
respondent a $750 advance deposit for fees and expenses to represent her in a 
change of custody matter.  Respondent deposited the funds in a commercial 
checking account and then failed for three months to communicate with Barlow or 
schedule required appointments with a child psychologist.  Respondent told 
Barlow that she had filed a motion on this matter in domestic relations court in 
August 1994 and that a hearing was set for October 20, 1994.  In fact, respondent 
had made no such filing, and the court had not set a hearing.  In October 1994, 
Barlow orally demanded a return of her advance payment and in January 1995 sent 
respondent a written demand.  As late as June 1995, Barlow had still not received 
a refund of the retainer.  
 
Finally, the panel found that in February 1993, respondent undertook to 
represent Frank A. Gelhot as executor of the estate of Marie C. Moorman.  After 
opening the estate in March 1993, respondent failed to proceed with the 
administration for one year and was ordered to appear before the probate court in 
April 1994, to show cause why accountings had not been filed.  In December 
 
4
1994, respondent had Gelhot execute estate checks for his executor’s 
compensation and for her attorney fees, which attorney fees, though yet 
unapproved by the court, were deposited in a commercial checking account.  The 
respondent failed to file a final account, and the probate court issued notices for 
both Gelhot and respondent to appear on August 16, 1995.  Respondent did not 
appear.  Later, in October 1995, the probate court disallowed a substantial portion 
of the executor’s compensation because of respondent’s miscalculations.  
Respondent failed to file the Ohio estate tax return for the estate and did not file 
the final account in the case until November 29, 1995.  
 
The panel also found that respondent failed to properly register her current 
status as an attorney with the Supreme Court of Ohio and failed to report her 
continuing legal education hours to the Supreme Court. 
 
In mitigation, the panel found that respondent admitted that she was an 
alcoholic and that as a result of her alcoholism she failed to represent her clients 
and caused injury to them.  At the time of the hearing, she was attending 
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, was regularly visiting a therapist, and was about 
to enter into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”). 
 
The panel concluded that with respect to clients Shupp, Miller, Kondovska, 
Lanza, Barlow, and Gelhot, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an 
entrusted legal matter), and with respect to Kondovska, Lanza, Barlow, and 
Gelhot, respondent violated DR 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of 
employment), 9-102(A)(2) (funds of a client shall be deposited in a separate 
account and not be commingled except with funds that potentially belong to the 
attorney), 9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all client funds 
and render appropriate accounts to the client), and R.C. 4705.09 (an attorney shall 
 
5
maintain an IOLTA (interest on lawyer’s trust account) and deposit therein client 
funds which are nominal or are to be held for a short time). 
 
The panel further concluded that with respect to clients Kondovska, Lanza, 
and Barlow, respondent violated DR 2-110(A)(3) (failure to refund unearned 
advance fees promptly after withdrawing from employment) and 9-102(B)(4) 
(promptly returning to the client when requested funds the client is entitled to 
receive).  Additionally, with respect to Lanza, the panel found a violation of 2-
110(A)(2) (withdrawing from representation without taking steps to ensure that 
the client is not prejudiced) and 9-102(B)(4) (promptly returning to client when 
requested properties the client is entitled to receive).  Respondent’s 
misrepresentations to Barlow and Gelhot, said the panel, violated DR 1-102(A)(4) 
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation) and 
7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of law or fact while representing 
a client).  
 
The board later concluded that respondent’s abuse of alcohol violated DR 1-
102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon an attorney’s fitness 
to practice law), Gov.Bar R. VI(1) (failing to register with the Supreme Court as 
required), VII(2)(A) (rendering legal services while not in active status as an 
attorney), and X (failing to comply with continuing legal education requirements).  
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended for two years with 
the entire term of suspension stayed on the condition that the respondent be on 
probation.  As terms of that probation, the panel recommended that respondent (1) 
establish an IOLTA account, (2) complete all necessary continuing legal education 
requirements and be currently registered, (3) abstain from alcohol and be subject 
to random testing by medical personnel, as selected by and reporting to relator 
Cincinnati Bar Association to verify such abstinence, (4) regularly attend alcohol 
 
6
counseling sessions, regularly attend AA/NA meetings, and enroll in OLAP, and 
(5) within sixty days prior to the end of her first year of probation, and at the 
termination of her second year of probation, submit to an examination by a 
physician chosen by relator to determine whether she is capable of practicing law.  
As a further consideration, the panel recommended that the Cincinnati Bar 
Association regularly monitor respondent’s practice of law.  
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and, except for modification of 
condition (5) above, the recommendations of the panel. 
___________________ 
 
Richard H. Johnson and Don R. Gardner, for relator Cincinnati Bar 
Association. 
 
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 
 
John H. Burlew, for respondent. 
___________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, but not its 
recommendations.  Respondent’s infraction deserves a stronger penalty.  An 
attorney’s neglect of legal matters warranted a one-year suspension with six 
months stayed in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Droe (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 89, 671 
N.E.2d 230, and an indefinite suspension in Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder (1997), 78 
Ohio St.3d 57, 676 N.E.2d 504.  Failure to segregate funds warranted a one-year 
suspension in Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Commt. v. Miles 
(1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 574, 669 N.E.2d 831.  In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Christensen 
(1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 71, 671 N.E.2d 30, we indefinitely suspended an attorney 
who failed to comply with the registration and continuing legal education 
requirements and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation. 
 
7
 
In this case, while recognizing respondent’s efforts to rehabilitate herself as 
an attorney, we believe that the pattern of neglect respondent has demonstrated 
justifies her removal from the practice of law for a period of time.  Accordingly, 
we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, but 
we stay the last eighteen months of the suspension.  Respondent will remain on 
probation for the entire period of suspension and shall take immediate steps to  
complete all necessary continuing legal education requirements and become 
currently registered as an attorney with the Supreme Court of Ohio.  In addition, 
respondent shall abstain from alcohol and be subject to random testing by medical 
personnel selected by and reporting to relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, to 
verify such abstinence, regularly attend alcohol counseling sessions, regularly 
attend AA/NA meetings and enroll in OLAP, and within sixty days prior to the 
end of her first year of probation and at least sixty days prior to the termination of 
her probation, submit to an examination by a physician chosen by the Cincinnati 
Bar Association to determine whether she is capable of practicing law.  If 
respondent has or receives client funds which are nominal or are to be held for a 
short time, respondent shall establish an IOLTA account.  The Cincinnati Bar 
Association shall regularly monitor respondent’s practice of law. 
 
Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents. 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I differ with the amount of time imposed as an actual 
suspension.  In my view no less than a full year is warranted.