Dayton Bar Assn. v. Parisi
131 Ohio St. 3d 345
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Parisi, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1982, faced a 2009 complaint alleging conflicts of interest and excessive fees.
- She represented both a proposed guardian and ward in a guardianship case, and paid her own fees from the client’s account without court approval.
- She obtained a power of attorney over the client while guardianship was pending and used it to bill over $18,000 to her own fees.
- In a separate matter, she served as attorney-in-fact for an elderly client and charged lengthy, nonlegal services at attorney rates.
- The Board found conflict of interest, prejudicial conduct, and clearly excessive fees; the court adopted these findings and imposed a six‑month suspension with stay contingent on no further misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parisi violated the conflict rules by dual representation | Parisi contends no adverse interests exist; cases permit dual representation | Demming’s diminished capacity and the guardianship context create adverse interests | Yes; dual representation violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.7 regardless of assent |
| Whether Parisi violated duties by using a power of attorney to pay her fees | Relator asserts misappropriation and prejudicial conduct | Parisi argues emergency/protective actions allowed under 1.14 | Yes; conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and related rules |
| Whether Parisi’s fee for nonlegal services was clearly excessive | Relator claims fees far exceed services rendered and are improper | Parisi argues 1.5(a) factors allowed the charges; nonlegal tasks were necessary | Yes; fees for nonlegal services were clearly excessive under 1.5/DR 2-106 |
| Whether the stayed six‑month suspension was an appropriate sanction | Relator seeks actual suspension for misconduct | Board recommended stayed suspension, arguing no repeat misconduct and mitigating factors | Yes; six-month stayed suspension affirmed with condition of no further misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of Love, 19 Ohio St.2d 111 (Ohio 1969) (early guardianship conflict considerations)
- In re Complaint Against Harper, 77 Ohio St.3d 211 (Ohio 1996) (due process/vagueness; rules governing guardianship actions)
- Shimko v. Lobe, 103 Ohio St.3d 59 (Ohio 2004) (constitutional limits on regulation of the practice of law)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bandman, 125 Ohio St.3d 503 (Ohio 2010) (indefinite suspension where misappropriation occurred)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson, 113 Ohio St.3d 344 (Ohio 2007) (cost-benefit analysis and misconduct in guardianship context)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Alsfelder, 103 Ohio St.3d 375 (Ohio 2004) (stayed suspension for charging for nonlegal services)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Watkins, 120 Ohio St.3d 307 (Ohio 2008) (stayed suspension for excessive fees)