Dayton Bar Association v. Strahorn.
152 Ohio St. 3d 288
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Derrick A. Strahorn, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1986, was retained in July 2013 by Harry Drake on a negligence claim for a $3,000 fee described in the written agreement as “nonrefundable.”
- Strahorn did not give the required simultaneous written notice that Drake might be entitled to a refund if Strahorn failed to complete the representation (Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3)).
- Strahorn’s fee agreement stated he did not carry malpractice insurance, but he failed to provide that information on a separate client-signed form as required by Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c).
- During litigation Strahorn delayed forwarding discovery to Drake, did not timely respond to an opposing motion to compel, and ultimately sought and was granted permission to withdraw in February 2015.
- The Dayton Bar Association charged Strahorn with violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct; parties stipulated to facts and misconduct. Strahorn later refunded the retainer in April 2017 and updated his office procedures.
- The Board recommended a six-month suspension fully stayed on conditions; the Supreme Court adopted that sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lawyer violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3) by taking a “nonrefundable” fee without required written refund notice | Relator: Strahorn failed to provide simultaneous written notice that client may be entitled to refund if representation not completed | Strahorn stipulated to the factual omission but emphasized corrective measures taken later | Court: Violation found; Rule 1.5(d)(3) breached |
| Whether lawyer complied with Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) regarding malpractice-insurance notice | Relator: Notice on fee agreement was insufficient because rule requires a separate client-signed form | Strahorn argued notice existed in fee agreement (but not on required form) and later corrected forms | Court: Violation found; requirement unmet |
| Whether lawyer failed to act with reasonable diligence (Prof.Cond.R. 1.3) in representing the client | Relator: Delays in forwarding discovery and failing to respond to motion to compel show lack of diligence | Strahorn noted limited scope (single client matter) and asserted post-filing improvements | Court: Violation found; lacked reasonable diligence and promptness |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct | Relator recommended discipline consistent with precedent and mitigating factors | Strahorn cited lack of prior discipline, restitution (albeit delayed), and remedial steps | Court: Six-month suspension, fully stayed on conditions (no further misconduct and 6 CLE hours focused on fee agreements, client funds, and office management); costs taxed to Strahorn |
Key Cases Cited
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Freedman, 128 Ohio St.3d 497 (public reprimand for failing to give required refund notice, poor communication, and not informing clients of lack of malpractice insurance)
- Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rucker, 134 Ohio St.3d 282 (public reprimand where lawyer neglected a matter and failed to give required refund notice)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmonds, 147 Ohio St.3d 280 (one-year suspension stayed on conditions for multiple communication and neglect failures affecting several clients)
- Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 96 Ohio St.3d 50 (six-month stayed suspension for neglect of entrusted legal matter)