Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Seibel
132 Ohio St. 3d 411
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Ronald E. Seibel admitted to the bar in 2004 and practiced in Ohio.
- Cincinnati Bar Association filed a complaint on December 6, 2010 alleging a $2,500 nonrefundable retainer was taken and not deposited to a trust account and an accounting/file return was not provided upon termination.
- A consent-to-discipline agreement proposed a six-month stayed suspension with a $2,000 refund, which the board rejected and sent for further proceedings.
- After a hearing, the board adopted stipulated facts and misconduct but rejected the six-month stayed suspension, instead recommending a public reprimand.
- Mincey retained Seibel in 2007 for a sexual-harassment suit against the University of Cincinnati; retainer was treated as nonrefundable and deposited to operating funds, and a written contingent-fee agreement was never memorialized.
- A right-to-sue notice was never obtained due to EEOC file destruction; Mincey ultimately sought her files and an accounting, receiving a $2,000 refund in 2011 and moving to new counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Seibel violate fee and trust accounting rules? | Mincey's retainer was nonrefundable; funds not held in trust; no writing for contingent fee; improper handling warrants discipline. | No improper intent; issues stem from miscommunication and administrative delays; restitution ultimately made. | Yes; violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(c)(1), 1.5(d)(3), 1.15(a), and 1.15(d). |
| Was restitution and accounting timely or properly handled? | Client rightful accounting and timely restitution are required; delay harmed client. | Delay due to inexperience and EEOC file destruction; restitution subsequently made. | Restitution eventually made; delay considered mitigating in context. |
| What is the appropriate sanction for Seibel's misconduct? | Public reprimand or stronger due to multiple rule violations and fund mismanagement. | Six-month stayed suspension with restitution would be adequate given mitigating factors. | Public reprimand; six-month stayed suspension rejected as too lenient compared to comparable misconduct. |
| What mitigating or aggravating factors affect sanction? | Mitigating factors not fully offset misconduct; lack of prior discipline cited. | Significant mitigating factors include no client injury, remorse, cooperation, and destruction of file beyond his control. | Substantial mitigating factors present; no aggravating factors found; sanction maintained as public reprimand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Halliburton-Cohen, 106 Ohio St.3d 98 (2005-Ohio-3956) (six-month stayed for excessive fee and unearned fees refund)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Ramos, 119 Ohio St.3d 36 (2008-Ohio-3235) (six-month stayed for neglect and mismanagement of fees)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cook, 121 Ohio St.3d 9 (2009-Ohio-259) (six-month stayed for earned-upon-receipt retainer issues and accounting failures)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Schmalz, 123 Ohio St.3d 130 (2009-Ohio-4159) (public reprimand for inappropriate client relationship)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Finan, 118 Ohio St.3d 106 (2008-Ohio-1807) (public reprimand for signing client’s name on affidavit and related misconduct)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Godles, 128 Ohio St.3d 279 (2010-Ohio-6274) (public reprimand for minimal client communication and management failures)