Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Sawers

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Sawers, 121 Ohio St.3d 229, 2009-Ohio-778.] 
 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. SAWERS. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Sawers, 121 Ohio St.3d 229, 2009-Ohio-778.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Accepting employment in a legal field in which 
lawyer is not professionally competent — Failure to maintain client funds 
in identifiable bank accounts — Charging a clearly excessive fee — Public 
reprimand. 
(No. 2008-1736 — Submitted September 17, 2008 — Decided March 3, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No.  08-014. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Mary Lou Sawers of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0073345, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
publicly reprimand respondent, based on findings that she charged clearly 
excessive fees, accepted employment in a legal field in which she was not 
professionally competent, and failed to deposit unearned fees in a client trust 
account.  We agree that respondent violated the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility as found by the board and that a public reprimand is 
appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Toledo Bar Association, charged respondent with 
professional misconduct, including violations of DR 2-106(A) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from charging or collecting a clearly excessive fee), 6-101(A)(1) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from accepting employment in a legal field in which the 
lawyer knows or should know that she is not professionally competent), and 9-
102(A) (requiring a lawyer to deposit client funds in a separate, identifiable bank 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
account).  A panel of the board considered the case on the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement.  See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (BCGD Prof.Reg.”). Accepting the agreement, the panel found the 
stipulated misconduct and recommended a public reprimand.  The board adopted 
the panel’s report. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent was previously informally affiliated in the practice of 
law with Willard A. Johnson.  Respondent met John G. and Nancy Mayer at a 
seminar presented by Willard Johnson & Associates titled “Elder Law Planning 
Strategies.” 
{¶ 4} Concluding that the Mayers were good candidates for their 
services, respondent and Johnson met with the Mayers in February 2006 at 
Johnson’s office and agreed to prepare for the couple a revocable trust and an 
irrevocable trust. 1  The Mayers paid Willard Johnson & Associates the $9,800 fee 
that Johnson quoted for the trust work.  By agreement between themselves and 
without notice to the Mayers, Johnson kept 65 percent of the Mayers’ $9,800 fee; 
respondent received 35 percent.2 
{¶ 5} In representing the Mayers, respondent prepared generic trust 
documents for the couple, making no effort to adapt the documents to their 
individualized legal needs.  For this, Johnson and respondent charged nearly 
$10,000.  Respondent admitted that she and Johnson had thereby charged an 
excessive fee in violation of DR 2-106(A). 
                                                 
1.  Johnson received a six-month license suspension, conditionally stayed, for misconduct he 
committed during this attorney-client relationship and in connection with another client.  See 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Johnson, 121 Ohio St.3d 226, 2009-Ohio-777, ___N.E.2d ___.   
 
2.  We held Johnson accountable for the impropriety of this arrangement, see DR 2-107(A) 
(providing that lawyers who are not in the same firm must obtain client consent in order to divide 
legal fees), because he was the more seasoned attorney and was in charge of the attorney-client 
relationship.  See Johnson, 121 Ohio St.3d 226, 2009-Ohio-777, ___N.E.2d ___. 
January Term, 2009 
3 
{¶ 6} Respondent also admitted that in agreeing to represent the Mayers, 
she accepted employment for which she had insufficient knowledge and 
experience, a violation of DR 6-101(A)(1).  Respondent conceded that she did not 
realize the adverse federal tax consequences for the Mayer trusts until she met 
with their financial planner, a revelation that caused the Mayers to ask that the 
trusts be terminated.  Finally, respondent admitted that she deposited the Mayers’ 
$3,430 directly into her general business account, a violation of her duty under 
DR 9-102(A) to hold these funds in trust until earned. 
{¶ 7} We accept the stipulations of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} We also accept the sanction proposed in the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement, a proposal that takes into account respondent’s cooperation 
in the disciplinary process and her lack of a prior disciplinary record, see BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d), as well as her acknowledgement of wrongdoing.  
Respondent has also reimbursed the Mayers for the legal fees she received. 
{¶ 9} We hereby publicly reprimand respondent for her violations of DR 
2-106(A), 6-101(A)(1), and 9-102(A).  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Munger Co., L.P.A., and Marshall W. Guerin; Rohrbachers, Light, Cron & 
Trimble, and Michael J. Manahan; and Jonathan B. Cherry, Bar Counsel, for 
relator. 
Goranson, Parker & Bella and Christopher F. Parker, for respondent. 
______________________