Akron Bar Association v. Glitzenstein.
116 N.E.3d 1252
Ohio2018Background
- Respondent Jonell Rae Glitzenstein, admitted 1993, was charged by the Akron Bar Association with multiple ethics violations arising from mismanagement of client funds and poor client communications.
- From Jan. 2013 to mid-March 2017 she received over $180,000 in client funds (retainers and cost advances) that she did not deposit into an interest-bearing client trust account.
- She failed to maintain required client-trust-account records and client ledger sheets, and did not preserve required account documentation.
- She failed to respond to a client who wished to terminate representation, delayed refunding an unearned retainer for nearly two years, and failed to return a client’s original documents after being instructed to do so.
- The parties entered a consent-to-discipline agreement; stipulated aggravating factors were selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, and multiple offenses; mitigating factors included no prior discipline, cooperation, and an OLAP contract.
- The Board recommended an 18-month suspension, fully stayed on conditions; the Supreme Court adopted that recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent violated client-trust-account rules by not depositing client retainers and advances | Glitzenstein failed to deposit advance fees and costs into a client trust account, violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and 1.15(c) | (Consent stipulated violations) No disputation of the factual violations | Court held she violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and 1.15(c) |
| Whether respondent failed to maintain required trust-account records | Relator argued she did not keep client ledgers and account records as required by Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2) and 1.15(a)(3) | (Consent stipulated violations) | Court held she violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2) and 1.15(a)(3) |
| Whether respondent failed to communicate and protect client interests on termination | Relator argued she failed to respond to a client’s termination request and delayed returning funds/documents, violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4), 1.16(d), 1.16(e) | (Consent stipulated violations) | Court held she violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4), 1.16(d), and 1.16(e) |
| Appropriate sanction for the stipulated misconduct | Relator recommended an 18‑month suspension, fully stayed on conditions including OLAP compliance, CLE, and monitored probation | Respondent agreed to the consent-to-discipline terms including conditions | Court adopted the consent sanction: 18‑month suspension, all stayed conditioned on OLAP compliance, 6 CLE hours on office/trust-account management, 18‑month monitored probation, and no further misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Barbera, 149 Ohio St.3d 505 (similar trust-account mismanagement; one-year suspension, stayed with conditions)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnston, 121 Ohio St.3d 403 (CLE, monitored probation imposed for commingling and overdrafts)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Vogtsberger, 119 Ohio St.3d 458 (suspension for depositing personal funds in trust account to shield them)
- Dayton Bar Assn. v. Scaccia, 141 Ohio St.3d 35 (suspension for mismanaged cases, improper use of retainers, and failure to maintain trust-account records)