Columbus Bar Assn. v. Sabol (Slip Opinion)
2021 Ohio 2059
Ohio2021Background
- Suzanne Kay Sabol, admitted 1983, solo practitioner in domestic relations in Columbus, Ohio.
- From 1983–2019 she routinely deposited client retainers into her law‑firm operating account rather than an interest‑bearing client trust account; she sometimes used the trust account only for certain transactions (e.g., sale proceeds) or to transfer unused retainers before refunding.
- Because she paid personal expenses from the operating account, she acknowledged she may have used client funds before they were earned, but she maintained detailed billing records and refunded unused retainers; no client complaints or demonstrated client loss.
- Bar charged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 and former DR 9‑102 for commingling and deficient trust‑account recordkeeping; parties stipulated to facts and misconduct for most counts.
- The Board found multiple offenses but significant mitigation (no prior discipline, no dishonest motive, cooperation, remedial steps) and recommended a six‑month suspension stayed on conditions including one‑year monitored probation and CLE; the Supreme Court adopted that recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sabol violated trust‑account rules by depositing retainers in operating account and failing to maintain required records | Bar: Sabol violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 and former DR 9‑102 by not keeping client funds in a separate, interest‑bearing trust account and by failing to perform/retain monthly reconciliations and required records | Sabol: admitted the conduct but emphasized lack of dishonest motive, no client harm, detailed billing records, and remedial measures | Court: Found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and related recordkeeping provisions and former DR 9‑102; misconduct adopted per stipulation |
| Appropriate sanction for trust‑account and recordkeeping misconduct | Bar/Board: suspend license but stay the suspension on conditions (monitored probation, CLE) given mitigating factors | Sabol: urged consideration of mitigation (no harm, no prior discipline, corrective steps) and a stayed suspension with probation/CLE | Court: Imposed six‑month suspension stayed in its entirety on conditions: one‑year monitored probation focused on law‑office management and client‑trust compliance, minimum 3 hours CLE on those topics, and refrain from further misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Turner, 160 N.E.3d 717 (2020) (court imposed one‑year suspension stayed on conditions for similar failures to keep client funds in a trust account and to refund/unearned fees promptly)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Fletcher, 911 N.E.2d 897 (2009) (six‑month suspension stayed on conditions where lawyer commingled client funds, failed to maintain records, but showed mitigation and no client loss)