Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Ass'n v. Fonda
138 Ohio St. 3d 399
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Charles W. Fonda, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1981, was charged by the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association with professional misconduct for neglect and communication failures in two client matters (Schub and Walton).
- Schub retained Fonda in 2007 to probate her brother’s estate; Fonda filed the Ohio estate tax return ~20 months late and the federal return ~39 months late, resulting in interest/penalties; he stopped responding to Schub and did not promptly return her file after termination.
- Walton retained Fonda in May 2009 to draft a demand letter and negotiate recovery of a repossessed truck; Fonda delayed sending the demand letter, largely ceased communicating, accepted additional payment for litigation costs but never filed suit, and delayed returning Walton’s file and check.
- The board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (diligence), 1.4(a)(3) and 1.4(a)(4) (communication), and 1.16(d) (duty on withdrawal) in both matters; alleged fee-related violations and 8.4(d) were dismissed for lack of proof.
- Aggravating factors: pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, harm to vulnerable clients. Mitigating factors: no prior discipline, no dishonest motive; mental-health diagnosis was acknowledged but not credited as mitigating because treatment was not yet sustained.
- The board recommended a one-year suspension, all stayed on conditions (restitution and compliance with OLAP); the Supreme Court adopted the board’s findings and imposed a one-year suspension fully stayed on similar conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fonda neglected Schub’s estate matters (1.3) and failed to communicate/return file (1.4, 1.16) | Schub: Fonda filed tax returns extremely late, accrued penalties/interest, stopped returning calls, and did not promptly return the file | Fonda stipulated facts but disputed misconduct; argued no excessive fee and attempted to explain delays | Court: Violations proven — 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.16(d) upheld; fee and 8.4(d) claims dismissed |
| Whether Fonda breached duties to Walton (scope, diligence, communication, file return) | Walton: Fonda delayed letter, ceased communicating for years, accepted additional funds and led Walton to believe litigation would be pursued, and delayed returning file/check | Fonda: representation was limited to a demand letter; further services required a separate litigation agreement and advance costs, so no duty to continue or to communicate | Court: Fonda’s conduct and representations created a reasonable expectation of ongoing representation; violations of 1.3, 1.4(a)(4), and 1.16(d) found |
| Appropriate sanction for misconduct | Relator: one-year suspension with limited stay (no more than six months stayed) | Fonda: no misconduct or, alternatively, only a public reprimand citing mitigating factors (mental health, cooperation, character) | Court: imposed 1-year suspension fully stayed on conditions (restitution of $707.33 to Schub, compliance with OLAP contract, no further misconduct); mental-health mitigation not credited due to lack of sustained treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hardiman, 100 Ohio St.3d 260 (recognizing attorney-client relationship may be implied from conduct and client expectations)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Furth, 93 Ohio St.3d 173 (finding neglect where client reasonably believed attorney represented him)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman, 128 Ohio St.3d 206 (imposing a 12-month suspension stayed on conditions for multi-matter neglect and communication failures)