Akron Bar Assn. v. Tomer
138 Ohio St. 3d 302
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Respondent Michele Ann Tomer, Ohio attorney since 1992, started private practice after being laid off from county prosecutor’s office in 2009.
- Relator Akron Bar Association charged Tomer with neglecting to act with reasonable diligence, failing to communicate, IOLTA account improprieties, and dishonesty during the disciplinary process.
- Stipulations were reached; parties recommended a six-month suspension stayed on conditions; board recommended two-year suspension stayed on conditions.
- Board found violations: Count I (Bonner matter) diligence/communication and IOLTA handling; Count II (Terzic matter) improper refund handling and IOLTA issues; Count III (dishonesty in investigation) false letters; Count IV (IOLTA accounting) improper recordkeeping.
- The Supreme Court independently reviewed and accepted the board’s findings, agreeing on misconduct and sanction, but analyzed mitigation and length of stayed suspension.
- Court imposed a two-year stayed suspension with monitored probation, 12 hours of CLE in law-office management, and no further misconduct as conditions; costs taxed to Tomer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the misconduct warrants suspension. | Tomer's multiple rule violations justify suspension. | Mitigating factors lessen severity; no lifelong discipline warranted. | Two-year stayed suspension warranted. |
| Whether a stayed suspension is appropriate given significant mitigation. | Mitigation should not negate suspension; violations serious. | Significant mitigating factors support a stayed sanction. | Stayed two-year suspension with conditions upheld. |
| Whether dishonesty in the disciplinary process alone justifies discipline. | Dishonesty plus other misconduct supports discipline. | Dishonesty mitigated by remorse and lack of prior discipline. | Dishonesty acknowledged; mitigated by factors; not to impose actual suspension beyond stayed term. |
| Whether IOLTA accounting violations require discipline and what sanction. | IOLTA improprieties show serious professional responsibility failures. | Accounting deficiencies are remediable with supervision; no diversion of client funds proven. | Violations acknowledged; proper sanction included monitoring and CLE to address deficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (factors in imposing sanctions balancing ethics and injury)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (aggravating/mitigating factors in sanction decisions)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Rohrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 65 (2009-Ohio-5930) (mitigating factors in discipline with dishonesty)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Potter, 126 Ohio St.3d 50 (2010-Ohio-2521) (significant mitigating factors can depart from automatic suspensions)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach, 130 Ohio St.3d 153 (2011-Ohio-4201) (stayed suspension where similar misconduct occurred)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 164 (2006-Ohio-550) (deference to hearing panel credibility determinations)