Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. Zoller and Mamone, 144 Ohio St. 3d 142

Nancy Anne Zoller and Edward J. Mamone were associates at Gurney, Miller & Mamone; their father Joseph Mamone (later resigned) also practiced at the firm and handled much of client contact.
From 2004, the firm managed assets for Eleanor Locher using a non‑interest, non‑fiduciary “special account”; Zoller and Edward were signatories; Joseph was not a signatory but wrote checks.
The firm collected $329,200 in attorney fees from Locher; many fees were undocumented, billed at $300/hr for nonlegal tasks, and some charges duplicated services covered by a monthly maintenance fee.
Accounting was deficient: no monthly reconciliations, numerous overdrafts, and poor recordkeeping; Locher died with modest remaining assets.
A disciplinary panel found Zoller violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2), and 1.15(a)(5); Edward violated 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2), and 1.15(a)(5). The panel recommended stayed suspensions and that Zoller make partial restitution; the board rejected restitution.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the board regarding restitution, holding both Zoller and Edward should be required to make restitution and remanding to the board to determine amounts and allocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Zoller should be ordered to pay restitution for excessive fees	Relator: Zoller shares responsibility for excessive and duplicative charges and for failing to oversee the special account; restitution appropriate	Zoller: asserted limited personal benefit; much misconduct attributable to father; argued insufficient evidence to fix amount	Court: Zoller must pay restitution; lack of precise records caused by her and firm; remand to board to determine amount
Whether Edward Mamone should be ordered to pay restitution for failures supervising the account	Relator: Edward failed in oversight duties as signatory, contributing to overcharging	Edward: less involved than Zoller; did not personally bill excessive fees; insufficient evidence to require restitution	Court: Edward also liable to pay restitution commensurate with his misconduct; remand to board for amount and apportionment
Whether the board properly declined restitution due to insufficient evidence of amount	Relator: board may determine amount despite poor records; restitution appropriate to remedy harm	Board/defendants: inability to calculate precise restitution precludes ordering payment	Court: rejected board’s reasoning; poor recordkeeping by respondents caused evidentiary shortfall; remand for calculation

In re Resignation of Mamone, 139 Ohio St.3d 1206 (2014) (disciplinary proceeding involving respondent’s father)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330 (2008) (treatment of overlapping disciplinary rules and continuity of conduct)
Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schramski, 124 Ohio St.3d 465 (2010) (continuing conduct across rule changes)