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

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Horton, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2390.] 

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. 2018-OHIO-2390

CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. HORTON.

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

may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Horton, Slip Opinion No. 

2018-Ohio-2390.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—Twoyear suspension, with one year conditionally stayed. 

(No. 2017-1416—Submitted December 6, 2017—Decided June 26, 2018.) 

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

Court, No. 2017-011. 

_______________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Debbie Kay Horton, of Solon, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0033622, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1986. On 

February 24, 2010, we suspended her for two years, with the second year stayed on 

conditions, for settling clients’ personal-injury claims and endorsing the settlement 

checks without the clients’ authority and converting the settlement proceeds to her 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

own use. Disciplinary Counsel v. Horton, 124 Ohio St.3d 434, 2010-Ohio-579, 

923 N.E.2d 141. We reinstated her license to practice law on May 11, 2011. 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Horton, 128 Ohio St.3d 1225, 2011-Ohio-2386, 947 

N.E.2d 174. 

{¶ 2} In a March 2, 2017 complaint, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar 

Association, alleged that Horton committed 17 violations of the professionalconduct rules while pursuing personal-injury claims on behalf of a woman and her 

minor daughter. Among other things, relator alleged that Horton failed to make 

required disclosures to her client, to obtain the client’s written consent to or 

acknowledgment of certain circumstances affecting the representation, to formally 

withdraw from the case following a disagreement with the client, to promptly 

deliver funds that the client was entitled to receive, and to maintain required records 

regarding her client trust account. 

{¶ 3} The parties submitted joint stipulations of fact and aggravating and 

mitigating factors, and Horton admitted to some of the charged misconduct. The 

parties jointly recommended that Horton be suspended from the practice of law for 

one year, with six months stayed on conditions. 

{¶ 4} The matter proceeded to a hearing before a panel of the Board of 

Professional Conduct. The panel found that Horton committed nine of the ten rule 

violations she admitted to committing, and it unanimously dismissed the remaining 

allegations. The panel recommended that she be suspended for two years, with one 

year stayed on the condition that she engage in no further misconduct, and further 

recommended that her reinstatement be subject to additional conditions. The board 

adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended 

sanction, and no objections have been filed. 

{¶ 5} Having independently reviewed the record, we adopt the board’s 

report and recommendation and suspend Horton from the practice of law for two 

years, with one year conditionally stayed. 
January Term, 2018 

3

Misconduct 

{¶ 6} On April 13, 2012, Raquel Green retained Horton to represent herself 

and her minor daughter in a personal-injury case arising from an automobile 

collision. Green signed Horton’s standard contingent-fee agreement, which 

provided for a fee of 33.3 percent of the amount recovered if settlement occurred 

before suit was filed and 40 percent of the recovery if a lawsuit was filed. Horton 

stipulated that she did not countersign that contract—or any of her fee contracts—

as required by Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(c)(1) (requiring a lawyer to set forth a contingentfee agreement in a writing signed by both the client and the lawyer). 

{¶ 7} Horton also failed to make and properly document other required 

disclosures. She did not inform Green that she did not carry professional-liability 

insurance or have her sign a written acknowledgment of that fact, as required by 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not 

maintain professional-liability insurance and to obtain a signed acknowledgment of 

that notice from the client). And although Horton orally informed Green that she 

intended to engage another attorney to serve as co-counsel, the terms of that 

relationship were never reduced to a writing that was signed by Green and the other 

attorney, as required by Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(e)(2) (prohibiting certain fee divisions 

unless the lawyers have made certain factual disclosures to the client and received 

the client’s written consent). Moreover, Horton admitted that she did not make 

these required disclosures to any of her other clients. 

{¶ 8} Horton filed a lawsuit on behalf of Green and Green’s daughter on 

April 4, 2014. She voluntarily dismissed that suit in January 2015 and refiled it the 

next month. At the final pretrial conference in January 2016, Green agreed to settle 

her daughter’s claim for the tortfeasor’s policy limits of $100,000 and to settle her 

own claim for $25,000. 

{¶ 9} Because Green’s daughter was a minor, Horton filed an application 

for probate-court approval of the settlement. According to Horton, the magistrate 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

at the probate hearing indicated that attorney fees for a minor’s claim were limited 

to one-third of the settlement. However, in approving the settlement, the magistrate 

also awarded Green $7,000 from her daughter’s settlement for “loss of service,” 

which according to Horton, was intended for Green to use to pay the remainder of 

Horton’s contracted fee. 

{¶ 10} When Horton and Green met at the Warrensville Public Library to 

sign the settlement checks in April 2016, they had a disagreement about Horton’s 

fees and a $5,500 discount that she had offered to Green. As a result of their verbal 

altercation, a Warrensville police officer ordered the two women to have no contact 

with each other. Horton testified that she felt compelled to obey that order even 

though it had not been issued by a court. Although she ceased contact with Green, 

she failed to file a written motion for leave to withdraw from the representation as 

required by the local court rules. She also failed to appear at a May 19, 2016 

hearing on defense counsel’s motion to enforce the settlement. Horton stipulated 

that her failure to formally withdraw from the case violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(c) 

(prohibiting a lawyer from withdrawing from representation in a proceeding 

without leave of court if the rules of the tribunal so require). 

{¶ 11} In a May 2016 grievance, Green claimed that she had not received 

the $7,000 awarded to her by the probate court. Horton told relator that she had 

sent Green a letter with a $7,000 check on April 19, 2016, but Green reported to 

relator that she had not received it. Horton waited until approximately five months 

after the grievance was filed before she issued a new check to Green and stopped 

payment on the original check. Horton admitted that her conduct violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other 

property that the client is entitled to receive). 

{¶ 12} Horton also stipulated that she failed to maintain proper records to 

document the funds held in her client trust account, and she testified that she used 

that account to pay at least one personal expense. She admitted that her conduct 
January Term, 2018 

5

violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2) through (5) (requiring a lawyer to hold the 

property of clients in an interest-bearing client trust account, separate from the 

lawyer’s own property; to maintain a record for each client on whose behalf funds 

are held setting forth the name of the account, the date, amount, and client affected 

by each credit and debit, and the balance in the account; and to perform and retain 

a monthly reconciliation of the lawyer’s client trust account). 

{¶ 13} Based on this evidence, the panel found that Horton’s conduct 

violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c), 1.5(c)(1), 1.5(e)(2), 1.15(a)(2) through (5), 1.15(d), 

and 1.16(c).1

 But the panel rejected the parties’ stipulation that Horton violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(1) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a copy of any fee 

agreement with each client) and unanimously dismissed that allegation, four 

allegations that relator had agreed to dismiss, and three others in support of which 

relator had presented no evidence. 

{¶ 14} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct, and 

we adopt those findings as our own. 

Sanction

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

several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, 

relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in similar 

cases. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A). 

{¶ 16} As aggravating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found 

that Horton has a prior disciplinary record, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, and 

violated multiple professional-conduct rules. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1), (3), and 

(4). Notably, as evidence of a pattern of misconduct, both the parties and the board 

 

1

 Although the complaint charged Horton with a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) (requiring a 

lawyer withdrawing from representation to take steps reasonably practicable to protect a client’s 

interest), the parties stipulated and the board found that her conduct actually violated Prof.Cond.R. 

1.16(c). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

cited not only Horton’s failure to sign her fee agreements with and make required 

disclosures to Green and other clients but also Horton’s failure to correct her clienttrust-account management practices following relator’s dismissal of a 2015 

overdraft investigation. 

{¶ 17} In mitigation, the board found that Horton demonstrated a 

cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceeding. See Gov.Bar R. 

V(13)(C)(4). Specifically, Horton was forthright and honest in discussing her past 

and current mismanagement of her client trust account, waived confidentiality with 

regard to relator’s 2015 disciplinary investigation, and readily admitted to her rule 

violations. The board noted that Horton had demonstrated a willingness to make 

necessary changes to her practice going forward but that her conduct since her 2010 

suspension demonstrates that she has difficulty understanding or implementing 

acceptable law-office practices and complying with the applicable professionalconduct rules regarding those matters. 

{¶ 18} The board recommends that we suspend Horton for two years, with 

one year stayed on the condition that she engage in no further misconduct. It also 

recommends that as a condition of reinstatement, she be required to submit proof 

that she has completed 12 hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) addressing 

law-office management—with three of those 12 hours focused on client-trustaccount-related instruction—in addition to the CLE requirements of Gov.Bar R. X. 

The board recommends that upon reinstatement, Horton be required for one year to 

work with a practice monitor, approved by relator, who will serve as Horton’s 

mentor with regard to law-office management. 

{¶ 19} In reaching its recommendation, the board considered several cases 

in which we disciplined attorneys for comparable misconduct. 

{¶ 20} In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Royer, 133 Ohio St.3d 545, 2012-Ohio-5147, 

979 N.E.2d 329, the attorney failed to deposit one client’s funds into his client trust 

account, failed to maintain required client-trust-account records, lost evidence that 
January Term, 2018 

7

was vital to the client’s claim, and neglected three legal matters involving another 

client. Although Royer had committed multiple offenses that affected vulnerable 

clients, he had no prior discipline during his 46 years of practice, had not had a 

dishonest motive, had made restitution to his clients, had fully cooperated in the 

disciplinary process, and had shown remorse. Therefore, we suspended him for 

one year, fully stayed on the conditions that he serve a two-year period of monitored 

probation without additional violations of the professional-conduct rules, retain a 

certified public accountant to review his bookkeeping procedures, and establish his 

compliance with Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 within six months of our order. 

{¶ 21} In Akron Bar Assn. v. Tomer, 138 Ohio St.3d 302, 2013-Ohio-5494, 

6 N.E.3d 1133, the attorney failed to file motions on behalf of a client, failed to 

secure signed notices from clients regarding her lack of professional-liability 

insurance, failed to refund unearned fees, failed to maintain required records 

regarding her client trust account, and submitted fabricated and backdated letters to 

the relator during a disciplinary investigation. We recognized that Tomer had 

committed multiple offenses and had engaged in dishonest conduct during the 

disciplinary investigation, but we also acknowledged that she had no prior 

discipline, had lacked adequate training when she entered private practice after 16 

years of “exemplary service” as an assistant prosecutor, had presented evidence of 

her excellent character and reputation, and had shown significant remorse. 

Consequently, we suspended Tomer for two years, all stayed on the conditions that 

she complete a two-year period of monitored probation, complete 12 hours of CLE 

focused on law-office management, and engage in no further misconduct. 

{¶ 22} And in Disciplinary Counsel v. Corner, 145 Ohio St.3d 192, 2016-

Ohio-359, 47 N.E.3d 847, we imposed a two-year suspension, with the second year 

stayed on conditions, for misconduct that included several overdrafts of the 

attorney’s client trust account, misuse of that account for personal expenses, 

commingling of personal and client funds, misappropriation, and failure to maintain 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

required client-trust-account records. Corner also failed to provide competent 

representation to a client in a bankruptcy proceeding and engaged in conduct 

prejudicial to the administration of justice by failing to comply with two 

disgorgement orders issued by the bankruptcy court. Mitigating factors included 

the absence of a prior disciplinary record and a mental-health diagnosis that 

contributed to Corner’s misconduct. 

{¶ 23} We find that Horton’s misconduct is comparable to that of Royer and 

Tomer, though perhaps not as egregious as that of Corner, whose misconduct 

extended well beyond the sloppy office practices exhibited here. We agree, 

however, with the board’s assessment that Horton’s prior disciplinary record and 

her failure to make agreed changes to her client-trust-account management 

practices following relator’s 2015 overdraft investigation weigh in favor of a 

sanction more severe than the one we imposed on Royer and Tomer, and 

comparable to that which we imposed on Corner. 

{¶ 24} Accordingly, Debbie Kay Horton is suspended from the practice of 

law in Ohio for two years, with one year stayed on the condition that she engage in 

no further misconduct. As a condition of reinstatement, Horton shall submit proof 

that she has completed 12 hours of CLE addressing law-office management, with 

three of those hours focused on client-trust-account-related instruction; those hours 

shall be in addition to the CLE requirements of Gov.Bar R. X. Upon reinstatement, 

Horton shall serve a one-year period of monitored probation in accordance with 

Gov.Bar R. V(21). If Horton fails to comply with the condition of the stay, the stay 

will be lifted and she will serve the full two-year suspension. Costs are taxed to 

Horton. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, and

DEWINE, JJ., concur. 

DEGENARO, J., not participating. 
January Term, 2018 

9

_________________ 

Tucker Ellis, L.L.P., Seth H. Wamelink, and Jon W. Oebker; and Heather 

M. Zirke, Bar Counsel, and Kari L. Burns, Assistant Bar Counsel, for relator. 

Debbie Kay Horton, pro se. 

_________________