Columbus Bar Association v. Midian., 111 N.E.3d 1183

William M. Midian, admitted in Ohio 2006, represented a doctor who had pled guilty to a misdemeanor workers’ compensation‑fraud charge and sought to mitigate its effect and to stay related medical‑board proceedings.
Midian discussed fees but did not set a specific amount or provide a written fee agreement; he accepted a $25,000 check and deposited it into his trust account.
Midian sent $12,500 of the funds to another attorney (Eric A. Jones) who was separately retained to handle medical‑board matters; Jones later returned $5,000 to Midian. No written fee‑sharing agreement was executed.
Midian delegated drafting of a motion to an attorney with little criminal experience, reviewed but did not sign the motion, and accepted a $17,500 fee for that work; the motion failed to invoke Crim.R. 32.1 or address manifest injustice and was overruled.
The parties stipulated violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a), 1.5(b), and 1.5(e); they also agreed on mitigating factors (no prior discipline, no dishonest motive, cooperation, refund of the $17,500, current use of written fee agreements).
The Board recommended, and the Supreme Court adopted, the parties’ consent‑to‑discipline agreement and imposed a public reprimand; costs were taxed to Midian.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Midian charged an illegal or clearly excessive fee (Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a))	Midian charged and collected a clearly excessive $17,500 for deficient work	Midian conceded misconduct but relied on mitigation (refund, no prior discipline)	Violation found; public reprimand imposed
Whether Midian failed to communicate fee terms in writing (Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(b))	No written fee agreement or clear communicated basis/rate of the fee	Midian acknowledged omission and has since adopted written fee agreements	Violation found; public reprimand imposed
Whether Midian improperly divided fees with a non‑firm lawyer without required written disclosures/consent (Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(e))	Midian forwarded client funds to Jones and received funds back without a written, proportional fee‑sharing agreement or client consent	Midian did not have proper fee‑sharing arrangement; relied on mitigation	Violation found; public reprimand imposed
Appropriate sanction for the misconduct	Public reprimand appropriate given similar precedent and mitigating factors	Agreed to consent‑to‑discipline and mitigation; requested public reprimand	Court adopted consent agreement and publicly reprimanded Midian

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Adusei, 136 Ohio St.3d 155 (public reprimand for clearly excessive fee)
Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Martorana, 137 Ohio St.3d 19 (public reprimand for attorney fee misconduct)