Summary
In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Sullivan (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 157, 571 N.E.2d 436, respondent received a public reprimand for a prior violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) and for having failed to carry out a contract for professional employment in violation of DR 7-101(A)(2).
Summary of this case from Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. SullivanOpinion
No. 90-2531
Submitted February 13, 1991 —
Decided May 8, 1991.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — Failure to carry out a contract of professional employment — Failure to provide an accounting of the application of retainer deposits as demanded by client.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 90-28.
In a complaint containing five counts, filed on April 25, 1990, the Cincinnati Bar Association, relator, charged Sharon A. Sullivan, respondent, with violations of DR 1-102(A) (4), (A)(5) and (A)(6), 6-101(A)(1) and (A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3), 7-102(A)(5), and 9-102(B)(3). The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, adopting the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of its panel selected to hear this matter, dismissed Counts I, II, III, and V. However, the board found that Sullivan had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter) and 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out a contract of professional employment) under Count IV. The board recommended that we publicly reprimand Sullivan.
According to the evidence, Sullivan agreed to represent James Warmouth in a divorce action pending in the Domestic Relations Court of Hamilton County. She received a $750 retainer and, on July 31, 1989, an additional $1,000 from Warmouth for attorney fees. Under the agreement, Sullivan charged $90 per hour for out-of-court time and $110 per hour for incourt time.
On July 28, 1989, Warmouth reached agreement with his wife to settle disputed matters in the case. He outlined this agreement and sent a copy to Sullivan so that she could prepare the necessary papers for presentation to the court.
Sullivan, however, never prepared these documents despite repeated requests by Warmouth. Sullivan maintained that a referee's decision on a pending motion would guide the parties on several matters in the agreement. The referee, however, declined to issue a decision because he believed the parties had settled the case.
In any event, the court notified Sullivan that it would dismiss Warmouth's case on December 6, 1989, unless the case were further prosecuted. The court, however, retained the matter on its docket.
Warmouth, nevertheless, dismissed Sullivan as his attorney and engaged new counsel in December 1989. Furthermore, Warmouth demanded an accounting of Sullivan's hourly time spent on his case or an accounting of the application of the ratainer deposits.
However, Sullivan failed to provide any accounting. Instead, she contended that she and Warmouth had, during the course of the representation, agreed to a flat fee arrangement of $3,250, the balance of which, she maintained, remained due. This fee dispute contributed to her discharge by Warmouth.
Charles E. Hamilton and Beth A. Myers, for relator.
Sharon A. Sullivan, pro se.
We have reviewed the record and agree with the board's findings and recommendation. Accordingly, we publicly reprimand Sullivan and tax costs to her.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.