[Cite as Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Snyder, 136 Ohio St.3d 320, 2013-Ohio-3688.]

G EAUGA C OUNTY B AR A SSOCIATION v . S NYDER . [Cite as Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Snyder, 136 Ohio St.3d 320, 2013-Ohio-3688.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to advise in writing that client may be entitled to refund of flat-fee retainer if lawyer does not complete representation— Public reprimand. (No. 2012-2074—Submitted February 6, 2013—Decided September 4, 2013.)

O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-099.

____________________ Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} Respondent, Timothy Harry Snyder of Burton, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0065926, was admitted to the pr actice of law in Ohio in 1996. In an 11-count amended complaint, relator, Geauga County Bar Association, alleged that Snyder committed 18 violations of the Rules of Pr ofessional Conduct, including charging excessive and nonrefundable fees in several client matters, as a
result of his activities in connection with a paralegal support company and with out-of-state counsel. The parties eventual ly submitted detailed stipulations that for the most part state facts. Some of the stipulations, however, specify that the parties disagree on certain matters. The stipulations do not include any admitted violations. At the start of a hearing conducted before a pane l of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, relator withdrew five alleged violations. The remaining a llegations were fully heard. {¶ 2} Following the hearing, the panel concluded that relator proved
three violations and recommended dismissa l of the remaining alleged violations as not proved by clear and convincing evidence. The board agreed with andS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conc lusions of law, and recommendation of a public reprimand. No objec tions have been filed. {¶ 3} Upon our independent review of th e record, we adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and agree th at the appropriate sanction is a public reprimand.
Misconduct {¶ 4} Relator alleged that Snyder ch arged excessive and nonrefundable fees, improperly shared fees with out-of-state counsel, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, failed to supervise nonlawyers in a connected paralegal support company, a nd failed to disclose to hi s clients his relationship with the paralegal support company. At the beginning of the hearing, relator withdrew some allegations of violations contained in several counts and withdrew two counts in their entirety. {¶ 5} The board ultimately found that relator proved that Snyder violated Prof.Cond.R. 7.3(c)(3) (requiring a wr itten communication from a lawyer soliciting professional employment from a prospective client to conspicuously
include in its text and on the outside envelope the recital “ADVERTISING MATERIAL” or “ADVERTISEMENT ONLY”), 1.5(d)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from charging a fee denominated as “earned upon receipt” or “nonrefundable” without simultaneously advising the clie nt 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), and 1.5(e) (permitting attorn eys who are not in the same firm to divide fees only if the fees division is reasonable and proportional to the work performed, the client consents to the arrangement in writing after full disclosure, and a written closing statement is prepar ed and signed by the client and each lawyer). The panel recommended dismissal of the remaining original allegations
in addition to those withdrawn at the hearing, and the board adopted thatJanuary Term, 2013

3 recommendation. We accept the recommendatio n to dismiss all alleged violations except for the three that were found to have merit. {¶ 6} The stipulated facts and evidence relevant to the three proven violations demonstrate that Snyder, doing business as Snyder Professional Law Services (“SPLS”), promoted SPLS as a foreclosure-defense firm with “of counsel” relationships with out-of-state attorneys. SPLS’s office letterhead
reflected these “of c ounsel” relationships. {¶ 7} Snyder shared office space with Performing Investment Corporation (“PIC”), a business that pr ovided paralegal and support services for Snyder, including interacting with c lients on the phone, compiling information, and contacting lenders regarding mitigation options. PIC employed a former Ohio attorney who had resigned from the practice of law in 2004 with disciplinary action pending. One of the stipulati ons acknowledges both Snyder’s assertion that he retained full supervision over the former attorney and relator’s disagreement with that assertion. PIC c ontracted with a marketing firm that assisted Snyder in attracting potential clients. Solicitation letters were sent to homeowners who were behind in their mortgage payments. Although the envelopes conspicuously showed that the enclosed letter was an advertisement, the letters themselves did not conspicuously include in their text the capitalized
recital “ADVERTISING MATERIAL” or “ADVERTISEMENT ONLY.” See Prof.Cond.R. 7.3(c)(3). {¶ 8} As part of his representation, Snyder would enter into a fee agreement with the client and SPLS that provided for a flat fee that was deemed earned in full upon the opening of the file and provided that no refunds would be made. The fee agreement also contained a provision that stated: “Client has the right to terminate this Agreement by notifying the SPLS in writing. Fees earned shall be retained * * *.” Snyder testified at the disciplinary hearing that the costS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 to the clients for representation ranged from $1,595 to $2,295. Of the contract fee amounts for out-of-state cases, between $200 and $500—depending on the state—would be sent to the attorney outside of Ohio who was listed as “of counsel” for that particular state. Snyd er generally retained $300 for each client, with the balance of the client’s payment going to PIC for its services. {¶ 9} We adopt the board’s findings and conclusions with regard to violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5( d)(3), 1.5(e), and 7.3(c)(3).
Sanction {¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider several relevant factors, including the ethical duties violated, the actual injury caused, the existence of any aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn.
v. Buttacavoli , 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16; Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren , 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. {¶ 11} Snyder’s ethical breaches concerning the deficient solicitation
letters and fee matters are identified above . The board found as mitigating factors Snyder’s absence of a prior disciplinary r ecord, his lack of a dishonest or selfish motive, his numerous voluntary refunds to his clients notwithstanding the language in the fee agreements, his fu ll and free disclosure and cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, and his good character and reputation. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). The board further found that no clients were harmed by Snyder’s misconduct and that he had voluntarily terminated his relationship with PIC. {¶ 12} The board found as aggravating factors that Snyder engaged in a pattern of misconduct and co mmitted multiple offenses. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d). The board found as additional aggravating factors thatJanuary Term, 2013

5 Snyder should have recognized that hi s out-of-state solicita tion letters were misleading as to his ability to practice in those states and that he should have registered with the Office of Disciplinar y Counsel his employment, contractual, or consulting relationship with a disqualified attorney. See Gov.Bar R. V(8)(G)(3). {¶ 13} With regard to the violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3), the board cited two cases as precedent for its recommendation of a public reprimand. In
Akron Bar Assn. v. Freedman , 128 Ohio St.3d 497, 2011-Ohio-1959, 946 N.E.2d 753, we imposed a public reprimand on an attorney who was found to have
violated three Professional Conduct Ru les, including Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3), when he did not execute a written fee agreem ent and did not advise his clients that they might be entitled to a re fund of all or part of the fee if he did not complete the representation. Id. at ¶ 3. Mitigating factors included no prior disciplinary record in almost 30 years of practice, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, respondent’s full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board, his expression of remorse, and his character and reputation. Id. at ¶ 8. {¶ 14} The board additionally cited Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Seibel , 132 Ohio St.3d 411, 2012-Ohio-3234, 972 N.E.2d 594, in which we also imposed a public reprimand, as instructive regarding a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3). In that case, the respondent also was found to have violated three other rules when he accepted two nonrefundable retainers fro m his client, failed to deposit those
retainers into his trust acc ount, failed to return his clie nt’s file and provide an accounting after being terminated, and failed to reduce his contingent-fee agreement to writing. Id. at ¶ 8. Mitigating factors included lack of a prior disciplinary record, acceptance of respons ibility, cooperation with the disciplinary investigation, and restitution. Id. at ¶ 11, 14. {¶ 15} In discussing sanctions for the re maining two violations, the board stated that each warranted a sanction “of a low level” primarily because neitherS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 violation caused harm to any client, but di d not identify any precedent. We have not imposed discipline based on a violati on of Prof.Cond.R. 7.3(c)(3). As to a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(e), in Toledo Bar Assn. v. Johnson , 121 Ohio St.3d 226, 2009-Ohio-777, 903 N.E.2d 306, we imposed a six-month suspension, stayed on the condition that the attorney commit no further misconduct, for violations of DR 2-107(A) (now Prof.Cond.R . 1.5(e)) and three other rules. The attorney in that case paid 35 percent of a $9,800 legal fee to another lawyer with whom he was not formally associated, on two occasions collected a clearly excessive fee, and committed two violations of the Disciplinary Rule requiring a lawyer to deposit client funds in a sepa rate identifiable bank account. Id. at ¶ 3-8. Given
the number of violations and the severi ty of their nature, the sanction in Johnson is distinguishable from that appropriate here. {¶ 16} A public reprimand here is consiste nt with our precedent involving cases of similar misconduct and aggravating and mitigating factors. Accordingly, we accept the board’s recommendation a nd hereby publicly reprimand Timothy Harry Snyder for his violations of Prof .Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3), 1.5(e), and 7.3(c)(3). Costs are taxed to Snyder. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

____________________ Todd Petersen and Patricia J. Schraff, for relator. Timothy H. Snyder, pro se.

________________________