Columbus Bar Association v. Rieser.
109 N.E.3d 1244
Ohio2018Background
- David P. Rieser, admitted 1980, previously disciplined (public reprimand 1995; suspension 2001) and subject of a 2017 disciplinary complaint by the Columbus Bar Association.
- Rieser represented a psychiatrist indicted on felony charges; no written fee agreement, no contemporaneous time records, no billing statements, and he failed to disclose lack of malpractice insurance.
- Client paid ~$108,000 (initial $30,000 plus eight subsequent checks); Rieser deposited funds across trust and business accounts, endorsed checks to a third party, and failed to maintain required trust-account ledgers or perform monthly reconciliations.
- Client pleaded to a misdemeanor with other charges dismissed; client later filed a grievance alleging excessive fees; Rieser failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation (didn’t produce file and missed depositions).
- Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c), 1.5(a), 1.5(b), 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2), 1.15(c), and 8.1(b).
- Parties jointly recommended a two-year suspension with one year stayed; the Board recommended indefinite suspension and $50,000 restitution; the Supreme Court reviewed and imposed a two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions (including $50,000 restitution within 30 days).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rieser committed the alleged ethics violations | Relator contended Rieser violated multiple rules relating to fees, trust accounting, client communication, and cooperation | Rieser stipulated to the misconduct (no dispute on violations) | Court adopted board’s findings of rule violations |
| Whether the fee charged was clearly excessive and restitution required | Relator argued the fees were excessive and $50,000 held in escrow should be returned to client | Rieser accepted fees but disputed the precise reasonable amount; contested degree of excess | Court ordered $50,000 restitution to client (board found reasonable fee between $30k and $60k) |
| Appropriate sanction (indefinite suspension vs. conditional stayed suspension) | Relator agreed with Rieser’s proposed two-year suspension with one year stayed and urged a lesser sanction than the board’s indefinite suspension | Rieser argued board’s reliance on Watson was misplaced, compared facts to DeLoach, and sought two-year suspension with one year stayed | Court sustained Rieser’s objection to indefinite suspension and imposed two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions (including restitution and no further misconduct) |
| Mitigating/aggravating weight | Relator noted prior discipline and multiple offenses as aggravating but acknowledged mitigating evidence | Rieser highlighted character letters, diagnosed situational anxiety/depression with treatment, partial refund efforts, and practice changes as mitigating | Court credited mitigation (including mental-health treatment and reforms) but noted prior discipline; mitigation supported conditional stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Watson, 144 Ohio St.3d 317, 2015-Ohio-4613, 42 N.E.3d 752 (Ohio 2015) (indefinite suspension in recurring trust-account and excessive-fee misconduct; court emphasized doubts about attorney's ability to practice ethically)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach, 143 Ohio St.3d 39, 2015-Ohio-494, 34 N.E.3d 88 (Ohio 2015) (two-year suspension with second year stayed for excessive fee, trust-account failures, and neglect; used as comparative precedent supporting stayed suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Rieser, 72 Ohio St.3d 130, 647 N.E.2d 1366 (Ohio 1995) (prior public reprimand for neglect)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Rieser, 93 Ohio St.3d 143, 753 N.E.2d 177 (Ohio 2001) (prior two-year suspension with 18 months stayed for neglect)