Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Mezher and Espohl
982 N.E.2d 657
Ohio2012Background
- Mezher and Espohl are Ohio attorneys practicing together at Mezher & Associates; Mezher admitted 1984, Espohl 1996.
- Relator Cincinnati Bar Association filed an amended complaint on December 12, 2011 alleging professional misconduct for charging for an initial “free” consultation and failing to communicate the fee basis.
- Panel found Mezher violated Prof.Cond.R. 7.1 (false/misleading communication) and Espohl violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(b) (communication of fee basis); board adopted these findings and recommended public reprimands.
- February 3, 2011 meeting where Burns Mahaffey sisters engaged the firm; meeting allegedly began as a free consultation but led to a billable attorney conference; the firm billed for an initial portion of the meeting.
- Mezher owned the firm and approved the website advertising a free consultation with no expressed limitations; the unwritten policy stated the free consultation ends when the client signs the fee agreement; court found this misleading and a violation of 7.1.
- Sanction: Mezher and Espohl publicly reprimanded; costs assessed jointly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mezher violated Prof.Cond.R. 7.1 through advertising a free consultation | Mezher advertised free consult without limitations; misleading to charge later | Advertising is not inherently misleading; any misperception arises from client actions | Mezher violated 7.1. |
| Whether Espohl violated Prof.Cond.R. 7.1 or 1.5(b) in the February 3 meeting | Espohl oversaw the meeting and billing; misled client about free status | Espohl discussed and billed for later portion; no evidence of intent to mislead | Espohl violated 1.5(b); 7.1 not proven for Espohl. |
| Whether Mezher’s fee advertising and policy misled clients as to when charges begin | Website omitted that free consult ends upon signing fee agreement | Policy existed but not clearly communicated; not a separate issue of 7.1 | Mezher violated 7.1 regarding misleading advertising. |
| Whether the appropriate sanction is a public reprimand | Mitigating factors present; misconduct serious | Public reprimand appropriate given findings | Public reprimand imposed on both respondents. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1985) (advertising no-fee arrangement requires disclosure of related costs)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Shane, No official reporter citation in text (Ohio 1998) (no charge unless we win; advertising lacked cost disclosure)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Britt, 2012-Ohio-4541 (Ohio Supreme Court 2012) (sanctioned for free initial consultation not fully explained)