[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Family, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4054.] 

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. 2021-OHIO-4054

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. FAMILY.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Family, Slip Opinion No. 

2021-Ohio-4054.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including 

failing to properly maintain and use a client trust account, charging a 

clearly excessive fee and sending misleading communication regarding a 

fee, and failing to act with reasonable diligence and to keep client informed 

about the status of a legal matter—Eighteen-month suspension, with the 

final 12 months stayed on conditions, effective when or if license to practice 

law is restored to active status.

(No. 2021-0978—Submitted September 8, 2021—Decided November 17, 2021.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 

Court, No. 2020-076. 

_______________________ 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Christian Manning Family, of Columbus, Ohio, 

Attorney Registration No. 0074728, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 

2002. On November 26, 2019, we accepted a consent-to-discipline agreement in 

which Family admitted that she had misused her client trust account and committed 

professional misconduct in a client matter. We suspended Family’s license for one 

year with the entire suspension stayed on conditions, including that she serve a oneyear term of monitored probation focusing on compliance with the client-trustaccount requirements in the Rules of Professional Conduct. Columbus Bar Assn. 

v. Family, 159 Ohio St.3d 1221, 2019-Ohio-5514, 149 N.E.3d 542, ¶ 2. 

{¶ 2} On December 22, 2020, relator, the Columbus Bar Association, filed 

a new complaint against Family charging her with misusing her client trust account 

and mishandling two client matters as well as other misconduct. Family stipulated 

to some of the charges. After a hearing, a three-member panel of the Board of 

Professional Conduct found that Family had engaged in the stipulated misconduct, 

dismissed other charges, and recommended that we suspend her license for 18 

months with 12 months conditionally stayed and impose conditions on her 

reinstatement. The board issued a report adopting the panel’s findings of 

misconduct and recommended sanction. Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(17)(B)(3), the 

parties filed a joint waiver of objections. 

{¶ 3} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of 

misconduct and recommended sanction, with two modifications to the sanction. 

Misconduct 

Client-trust-account violation

{¶ 4} In May 2020, disciplinary counsel received notice from Family’s 

bank that she had overdrawn her client trust account. In response to an inquiry 

from disciplinary counsel, Family claimed that she had registered her license as 

inactive and that in the process of closing her law practice, she accidentally 
January Term, 2021 

3

overpaid a refund to one client, which caused her bank to dishonor a refund check 

issued to a different client. Although Family ultimately closed her client trust 

account with a zero balance, the parties stipulated that relator was not satisfied that 

she had properly reconciled the funds in the account. 

{¶ 5} Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated and the board found that 

Family violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients 

in an interest-bearing client trust account, separate from the lawyer’s own property, 

and to maintain certain records for the account and perform and retain a monthly 

reconciliation of the funds in the account). 

The Ahmed matter 

{¶ 6} In May 2019, Muna Ahmed retained Family to represent her in a 

domestic-relations matter. In their written fee agreement, Ahmed agreed to pay 

Family a $1,500 retainer and $500 per month for the life of the case—a fee structure 

that Family described as a “subscription” model. The agreement further provided 

that all payments were “earned upon receipt,” although Family failed to advise 

Ahmed in writing that if Family did not complete the representation for any reason, 

Ahmed may be entitled to a refund of all or of a portion of the fees paid. 

{¶ 7} Notwithstanding the terms of the fee agreement, Family advised 

Ahmed that she would charge her $250, rather than $500, per month. Ahmed 

thereafter paid Family $1,500 in May 2019 and $250 in June. But in July, Family 

sent Ahmed an invoice showing charges based on a $350 hourly rate for attorney 

work and a $150 hourly rate for paralegal work. Family had never advised Ahmed 

that there might be additional hourly charges associated with the representation, 

and the invoice itself noted that subscription clients were billed at a flat rate each 

month. 

{¶ 8} In August, Family sent Ahmed another invoice showing charges 

based on an hourly rate. In addition, the August invoice noted that all of Family’s 

clients were “being transitioned to hourly,” even though Family never sought or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

obtained Ahmed’s consent to modify the terms of their fee agreement. In 

September and October, Family again sent Ahmed invoices showing charges based 

on hourly rates. But inexplicably, those invoices also included the language that 

Family’s subscription clients were billed at a flat rate each month. Despite the 

confusing invoices, Ahmed continued making $250 monthly payments. However, 

an October invoice failed to show a credit for Ahmed’s payment.

{¶ 9} After Ahmed questioned the accuracy of her bill, Family scheduled a 

meeting with her. When Ahmed arrived for the meeting, she found Family’s office 

door locked, even though Ahmed could hear Family inside on the telephone. 

Ahmed called and emailed Family to let her know she was outside, but Family 

refused to meet with her. 

{¶ 10} Family later admitted that her fee agreement with Ahmed was 

deficient, her invoices were “extremely confusing,” and she had breached the fee 

agreement by unilaterally changing the payment terms. Family also agreed to 

refund $500 to Ahmed. Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated and the board 

found that Family violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from making 

an agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee) and 

1.5(d)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from charging a fee denominated as “earned upon 

receipt” 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). 

The Sutton matter

{¶ 11} In April 2018, Kimberly Sutton retained Family to represent her in a 

domestic-relations matter. In November 2018, Family notified Sutton that an 

associate, Doug Kutsko, would attend a December hearing and that he would meet 

with Sutton beforehand. Sutton expressed concern about paying Kutsko to get up 

to speed on her case, considering that she had already paid Family to familiarize 

herself with the matter. In an email, Family indicated that Kutsko’s meeting with 
January Term, 2021 

5

Sutton would be at “no cost” to her. Family, however, billed Sutton $125 for the 

meeting with Kutsko. Family later admitted that it was improper to bill Sutton for 

a meeting that she had previously indicated would be at no charge to Sutton. 

{¶ 12} In July 2019, Family was served with discovery requests in the 

Sutton matter. Sutton sent Family draft responses and indicated that she objected 

to some of the requests, including those seeking personal identifying information. 

Family promised to remove any such personal information and add objections to 

Sutton’s responses, but she produced Sutton’s draft responses without removing the 

personal information or making any objections. Opposing counsel filed a motion 

to compel discovery, arguing that Sutton’s responses were incomplete. The court 

granted the motion, and after Family failed to comply with the court’s order, 

opposing counsel moved for sanctions against Sutton. Family failed to inform 

Sutton about the motion to compel, the court’s order, or the motion for sanctions. 

After Sutton discovered the filings on the court’s online docket, she terminated the 

representation. 

{¶ 13} Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated and the board found that 

Family violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable 

diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably 

consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be 

accomplished), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed 

about the status of a matter), and 1.5(a). 

{¶ 14} We agree with the board’s findings of misconduct. We also dismiss 

any other rule violations alleged in relator’s complaint that were not expressly 

dismissed by the hearing panel. 

Sanction

{¶ 15} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 

relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorney violated, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 

imposed in similar cases. 

{¶ 16} As for aggravating factors, the board found that Family has prior 

disciplinary offenses for similar misconduct, exhibited a selfish motive, and 

engaged in a pattern of misconduct over two disciplinary cases, committing some 

of the misconduct in this matter while under the stayed suspension imposed in her 

prior case. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1), (2), and (3). In mitigation, the board found 

that Family made restitution, submitted evidence of good character, and 

acknowledged the wrongful nature of her misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(3) 

and (5). 

{¶ 17} The board recommends that we suspend Family for 18 months with 

12 months conditionally stayed, impose conditions on her reinstatement, and order 

her to work with a monitoring attorney for a two-year period after her reinstatement. 

In crafting its recommendation, the board found most instructive cases involving 

attorneys with previous discipline who engaged in misconduct comparable to 

Family’s. For example, in Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Thomas, 154 Ohio St.3d 

57, 2018-Ohio-3267, 110 N.E.3d 1271, we accepted a consent-to-discipline 

agreement in which the attorney admitted that he had failed to diligently represent 

clients in a matter and had charged them an improper nonrefundable fee. Only one 

aggravating factor—the attorney’s prior discipline—was present and weighed 

against multiple mitigating factors, including the attorney’s lack of a dishonest or 

selfish motive and the fact that he had instituted office-management practices to 

prevent similar misconduct in the future. We imposed a one-year suspension stayed 

on conditions, including that the attorney serve a period of monitored probation and 

complete continuing legal education (“CLE”) on law-practice management. 

{¶ 18} The board also cited Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nelson, 152 Ohio St.3d 

222, 2017-Ohio-8856, 94 N.E.3d 551, in which an attorney violated the rule 

regulating client trust accounts, charged a fee denominated as “earned on receipt” 
January Term, 2021 

7

without simultaneously advising that the client may be entitled to a refund, failed 

to promptly refund a client’s unearned fee, failed to cooperate in a disciplinary 

investigation, and failed to notify a client that he lacked malpractice insurance. 

Although the attorney argued for a fully stayed suspension, we concluded that an 

actual suspension was necessary to protect the public. We noted that he had 

violated one of the same professional-conduct rules that he had violated in his first 

disciplinary matter and that after his first case, he failed to implement the 

procedures necessary to ensure compliance with the rule. Id. at ¶ 22-23. We 

imposed a two-year suspension with 18 months conditionally stayed and ordered 

him to complete CLE on law-office management and serve a period of monitored 

probation upon his reinstatement. 

{¶ 19} In addition, the board cited Columbus Bar Assn. v. Watson, 144 Ohio 

St.3d 317, 2015-Ohio-4613, 42 N.E.3d 752, in which an attorney charged a client 

a clearly excessive fee and twice failed to deposit clients’ advanced legal fees into 

his client trust account. Because we had previously disciplined the attorney for 

similar misconduct, we noted that he had engaged in a pattern of misconduct in two 

separate disciplinary cases and “even worse, when he engaged in the misconduct 

[in the second case], his prior disciplinary case was either pending or he had already 

been placed on probation.” Id. at ¶ 10. We indefinitely suspended the attorney, in 

part based on the board’s expression of “serious doubts about [the attorney’s] 

ability to effectively and ethically practice law.” Id. at ¶ 10. 

{¶ 20} Family’s misconduct here was more egregious than that in Thomas 

and closer to the misconduct in Nelson and Watson. And like the attorneys in 

Nelson and Watson, Family has been previously disciplined for some of the same 

misconduct. Unlike Watson, however, the board has not expressed doubts about 

Family’s ability to practice law effectively and ethically in the future. Thus, we 

agree that the sanction recommended by the board is commensurate with Family’s 

misconduct, the other circumstances of this case, and our precedent. We also 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

conclude that the recommended conditions on reinstatement will help to protect the 

public if Family is reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. We modify the 

conditions by directing the monitoring attorney to focus on Family’s practice of 

law, use of her client trust account, and fee agreements. And because Family is 

currently registered as an inactive attorney, her suspension shall not commence 

unless and until she restores her license to active status. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 21} Christian Manning Family is hereby suspended from the practice of 

law in Ohio for 18 months, with the final 12 months stayed on the conditions that 

she refrain from further misconduct and pay the costs of these proceedings. If 

Family fails to comply with either condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and 

she will serve the entire 18-month suspension. In addition to the requirements of 

Gov.Bar R. V(24), Family’s reinstatement shall be conditioned upon her providing 

proof that she (1) completed at least two three-hour CLE courses on law-office 

management—approved in advance by relator—as part of her CLE requirements 

for a suspended attorney and (2) submitted to an evaluation by the Ohio Lawyers 

Assistance Program and complied with any treatment or counseling 

recommendations resulting from the evaluation. Upon reinstatement to the practice 

of law, Family shall be required to work with a monitoring attorney appointed by 

relator for a two-year period. The monitoring attorney shall focus on Family’s 

practice of law, use of her client trust account, and fee agreements. Because Family 

is currently registered as an inactive attorney, this sanction has no effect unless and 

until she restores her license to active status. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 

and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 
January Term, 2021 

9

Frost Brown Todd, L.L.C., and Russell J. Kutell; Bradley Frick & 

Associates and Bradley Frick; and Kent R. Markus, Bar Counsel, and Thomas E. 

Zani, Deputy Bar Counsel, for relator. 

Ulmer and Berne, L.L.P., and Alvin E. Matthews, for respondent.

_________________