[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda, 125 Ohio St.3d 140, 2010-Ohio-1469.] 

AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. HOLDA. 

[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda, 125 Ohio St.3d 140, 2010-Ohio-1469.] 

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to act with reasonable diligence and 

promptness in representing a client — One-year stayed suspension. 

(No. 2009-2080 — Submitted January 13, 2010 — Decided April 7, 2010.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-005. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Sheri Lynn Holda of Green, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0073993, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001. 

On November 29, 2006, we publicly reprimanded respondent for failing to 

maintain a retainer in a separate trust account, neglecting an entrusted legal 

matter, and failing to properly refund a retainer upon the termination of her 

representation of a client. Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda, 111 Ohio St.3d 418, 2006-

Ohio-5860, 856 N.E.2d 973. 

{¶ 2} In this case, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline recommends that we suspend respondent’s license to practice law for 

one year, with the suspension stayed upon certain conditions aimed at eliminating 

any monetary loss to the affected clients and preventing the recurrence of future 

disciplinary violations. The board’s recommendation is based on its finding that 

respondent committed professional misconduct by failing to act with reasonable 

diligence and promptness in her representation of two clients and failing to 

promptly deliver her case file to one of the clients upon termination of her 

representation. We agree that respondent committed the professional misconduct 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

found by the board, and with a minor modification, we agree that the appropriate 

sanction is a conditionally stayed one-year suspension. 

{¶ 3} Relator, Akron Bar Association, charged respondent in a two-count 

complaint with violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct. After 

respondent filed an answer in which she denied that she had committed any 

misconduct, the parties stipulated to certain facts and misconduct. Specifically, 

the parties stipulated that in her representation of two clients, respondent violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and 

promptness in representing a client). At a hearing before a three-member panel of 

the board, relator dismissed the remaining charges. 

{¶ 4} Relator recommended a one-year suspension, with the entire 

period stayed upon certain conditions, and respondent did not object to the 

recommendation. After the hearing, the panel made findings of fact and 

conclusions of law and recommended that the board impose a one-year 

suspension, with the entire period stayed upon the following conditions: (1) 

respondent shall contact the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and 

sign a contract with OLAP and follow its recommendations during the period of 

her stayed suspension, (2) a monitor chosen by relator shall monitor respondent 

during the stayed suspension, (3) respondent shall attend a law office management 

program or seminar during her stayed suspension, and (4) respondent shall refund 

$1,000 to one of her clients and $1,500 to the other client. The board adopted the 

panel’s findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 

{¶ 5} The parties have not objected to the board’s report. 

Misconduct

Count One – Estate Matter

{¶ 6} In December 2007, a client retained respondent to handle a release 

from administration of his father’s estate. The client signed probate documents 

and gave his father’s will to her along with a $1,000 retainer check. Respondent 
January Term, 2010 

3 

deposited the check into her trust account and withdrew the entire amount a few 

months later. 

{¶ 7} Respondent never filed any estate case on behalf of her client, and 

after the client terminated her representation and secured new counsel, the new 

attorney asked respondent in June 2008 for her case file, including the will. 

Respondent, however, did not give the file to the client’s new counsel until late 

September 2008. 

{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the panel found that respondent’s 

conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3. The panel further determined that based on 

her admission at the hearing, respondent also violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) 

(requiring a lawyer upon termination of representation to promptly deliver to the 

client papers and property belonging to the client). Because respondent was 

originally charged in relator’s complaint with the latter violation, relator’s 

subsequent withdrawal of the charge at the disciplinary hearing did not preclude 

the panel from finding that respondent’s admission at the hearing provided the 

requisite clear and convincing evidence that she had violated the rule. See Dayton 

Bar Assn. v. Millonig (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 403, 405, 704 N.E.2d 568. 

{¶ 9} The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct, as do we. 

Count Two – Custody Case

{¶ 10} In June 2008, a client paid respondent a $1,500 retainer fee to 

pursue custody of the client’s grandchild. Respondent filed a motion on behalf of 

her client and was notified of the date and time of a status hearing on the matter. 

She did not appear at the status hearing and did not advise either the court or her 

client that she would be arriving late. 

{¶ 11} Following the hearing, respondent agreed to file objections to the 

magistrate’s order in the case. However, she failed to file timely objections to the 

order. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

{¶ 12} Respondent stipulated and the panel and board found that her 

conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3. We adopt the board’s finding of misconduct. 

Sanction

{¶ 13} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 

weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors in respondent’s case and reviewed 

sanctions imposed in similar cases. The sole aggravating factor found by the 

board was respondent’s prior public reprimand. See Rules and Regulations 

Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 

Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”) 10(B)(1)(a). 

{¶ 14} In mitigation, the board determined that respondent established the 

absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, agreed to make restitution to each client 

by refunding their retainer fees, exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the 

disciplinary proceedings, and submitted letters and testimony from various 

individuals, including judges, attorneys, and clients, attesting to her good 

character. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b), (c), (d), and (e). Most significantly, the 

board gave credit to respondent’s testimony that she had taken steps to prevent 

similar situations from occurring in the future by moving her practice into an 

office with another attorney who will monitor her work and provide a structured 

environment and support staff to assist her. 

{¶ 15} The board determined that a conditionally stayed one-year 

suspension was appropriate based on comparable cases involving multiple 

offenses. Cf. Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lowden, 105 Ohio St.3d 377, 2005-Ohio-2162, 

826 N.E.2d 836 (two-year conditionally stayed suspension for conduct involving 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and failure to cooperate with a 

disciplinary investigation in addition to neglecting entrusted legal matters); 

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Watson. 106 Ohio St.3d 298, 2005-Ohio-4983, 834 N.E.2d 

809 (six-month conditionally stayed suspension for misconduct including 

neglecting an entrusted legal matter). 
January Term, 2010 

5 

{¶ 16} We agree with the board’s recommended sanction but add the 

requirement that respondent shall refund the retainer fees paid by the clients by 

June 1, 2010, or the stay of the suspension will be lifted. This case involves less 

egregious misconduct than that involved in Lowden but warrants a harsher 

sanction than that imposed on the attorney in Watson due to respondent’s previous 

discipline for similar misconduct. 

{¶ 17} Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio 

for one year, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that respondent 

shall (1) contact and sign a contract with OLAP and follow its recommendations 

during the period of the stayed suspension, (2) report to an attorney chosen by 

relator to monitor respondent during the stayed suspension, (3) attend a law office 

management program or seminar during the stayed suspension, and (4) refund 

$1,000 to her client in the estate matter and $1,500 to her client in the custody 

case by June 1, 2010. If respondent fails to comply with the terms of the stay, the 

stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire one-year suspension. 

Costs are taxed to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 MOYER, C.J.,1 and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 James M. Campbell; Patricia A. Vance; and Hardesty, Kaffen & 

Zimmerman and David Friedman, for relator. 

 Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.P., Peter T. Cahoon, and Dennis 

J. Bartek, for respondent. 

_____________________ 

 

1. The late Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer participated in the deliberations in, and the final 

resolution of, this case prior to his death.