Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sherman

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sherman, 101 Ohio St.3d 158, 2004-Ohio-340.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHERMAN. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sherman, 101 Ohio St.3d 158, 2004-Ohio-
340.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension with sanction stayed on 
condition that no further misconduct is committed—Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—Neglecting an entrusted 
legal matter—Failing to maintain client funds in a separate identifiable 
bank account. 
(No. 2003-1810 — Submitted December 1, 2003 — Decided February 11, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-23. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Dennis H. Sherman of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0003620, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1966.  On April 14, 
2003, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a complaint charging 
respondent with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause 
on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, which included a joint recitation 
of the facts, admitted misconduct, and suggested sanction.  See Section 11 of the 
Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. 
{¶2} 
The parties agreed that a married couple had retained respondent to 
recover damages incurred during a failed remodeling project of their home.  The 
couple paid respondent $700 on August 8, 1998, and he later consulted the builder 
about the work necessary to complete the remodeling project.  Respondent also 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
threatened legal action if the matter could not be resolved, including a negligence 
suit for injuries sustained by one of his clients who fell at the construction site. 
{¶3} 
The couple did not hear from respondent again until February 6, 
1999, when he suggested that they hire an expert to survey the builder’s work and 
assess the needed repairs and reparations.  The couple hired an expert for $500 
and also paid $200 for another evaluation of the project.  Respondent spoke with 
his clients once more, on April 14, 1999, but then stopped returning their calls and 
ignored their other efforts to contact him.  Not until the clients filed their 
grievance did respondent communicate with them again. 
{¶4} 
The parties agreed that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(neglecting an entrusted legal matter) and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice law) in his representation of 
the couple remodeling their home.  The parties also agreed that respondent had 
violated 9-102(A) (failing to maintain client funds in a separate identifiable bank 
account) because in returning the couple’s $700 fee, he paid them by a check that 
was not drawn from his client trust account.  The panel accepted the consent-to-
discipline agreement and, in doing so, found the agreed-upon misconduct. 
{¶5} 
The parties also agreed on the absence of any aggravating 
considerations and jointly submitted the following as mitigating: (1) the 
commingling in this case was an isolated event inasmuch as respondent typically 
maintained client funds in a trust account, (2) he quickly made restitution to his 
clients upon learning of their grievance and otherwise cooperated in the 
disciplinary proceedings, (3) he accepted his responsibility and apologized for his 
misconduct, (4) he had not neglected his clients deliberately or in his own interest, 
and (5) he had no prior disciplinary record.  See Section 10 of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  The parties suggested that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months for this 
January Term, 2004 
3 
misconduct, with the entire suspension period stayed, and the panel agreed to 
recommend this sanction after taking into account the mitigating features.  The 
board also adopted the consent-to- discipline agreement, finding that respondent 
committed the cited misconduct and recommending a six-month suspension, all 
stayed. 
{¶6} 
We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 
and 9-102(A) and that this misconduct warrants a six-month suspension, all 
stayed, consistent with the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  As the 
parties note, we have imposed similar sanctions in prior cases when convinced by 
extenuating circumstances that an attorney will not neglect another client’s case.  
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 96 Ohio St.3d 50, 2002-Ohio-2987, 770 N.E.2d 
1009; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Morrison, 96 Ohio St.3d 52, 2002-Ohio-2991, 770 
N.E.2d 1011. 
{¶7} 
Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for six months; however, imposition of the suspension is stayed on the 
condition that he commit no further misconduct during the period.  If respondent 
violates this condition, the stay shall be lifted and respondent shall serve the full 
term of suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
 
Harry J. Jacob III, for relator. 
 
Niki Z. Schwartz, for respondent.