Columbus Bar Assn. v. Adusei
991 N.E.2d 1142
Ohio2013Background
- Respondent Adusei, an Ohio attorney admitted in 2007, was charged with misconduct regarding representation of decedent Addai’s family and estate.
- Relator Columbus Bar Association alleged three violations: charging an illegal/clearly excessive fee, failing to write a contingent-fee agreement, and creating a potential conflict by representing multiple family members.
- In June 2009 Addai was killed; extended Ghanaian family members sought Adusei’s services for funeral and estate issues, and potential distribution of assets.
- Adusei did not execute a written contingent-fee agreement and the family verbally agreed to a one-third contingency, without discussing it with all heirs.
- Adusei earned and retained fees from life-insurance proceeds (about $7,956.77) and distributed a portion to others, totaling around $14,748.33 to Mrs. Addai, with the balance to Adusei; funding appeared to come from insurance proceeds.
- The Board and panel found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) and 1.5(c)(1); the Board recommended public reprimand, and the court adopted that sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adusei charged an illegal or clearly excessive fee | Bar alleged fee was excessive under 1.5(a) | Adusei contended fees were justified and not clearly excessive | Yes, fee was clearly excessive under 1.5(a)₂ and restitution was recognized |
| Whether Adusei failed to reduce a contingent-fee agreement to writing | Bar asserted lack of writing violated 1.5(c)(1) | Adusei argued implied understanding and not a formal agreement | Yes, violated 1.5(c)(1) requiring written contingent-fee agreement |
| Whether there was a conflict of interest in representing multiple family members | Bar claimed prohibited conflicts under Prof.Cond.R. 1.7 | No disqualifying conflict found in the stipulated record | No reportable conflict under the stated stipulations |
Key Cases Cited
- Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Martorana, 137 Ohio St.3d 19 (2013-Ohio-1686) (public reprimand for excessive fees with mitigating evidence)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hackett, 129 Ohio St.3d 186 (2011-Ohio-3096) (public reprimand for excessive fee with additional rule violation)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 49 (2009-Ohio-5960) (public reprimand for excessive fee with mitigating factors)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Randolph, 85 Ohio St.3d 325 (1999) (public reprimand for excessive fee with restitution and responsibility admission)