Disciplinary Counsel v. Schuman.
152 Ohio St. 3d 47
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Andrew R. Schuman, an Ohio attorney admitted in 2000, served as guardian ad litem (GAL) in a juvenile custody case; the juvenile court approved GAL fees based on 42.7 hours at $80/hour (total $3,416) and ordered each parent to pay half.
- Schuman sued the parents in Findlay Municipal Court seeking a joint-and-several judgment based on a $150/hour rate and an inflated total, omitting that the juvenile court approved $80/hour, that he had already received $700, and that each parent was to pay half.
- He filed a misleading affidavit and an altered itemized bill deleting the $80/hour line; after default, he obtained garnishment and collected $7,127.87 from the father (D.S.), more than the approved GAL fees.
- During disciplinary proceedings Schuman admitted seeking the higher rate, collecting excess amounts, omitting material facts, and continuing to misrepresent facts to the municipal court; he later refunded the overcharges and interest to D.S. and cooperated with the board.
- The Board of Professional Conduct found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a), 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h), and recommended a one-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions; Schuman stipulated to misconduct but sought a fully stayed suspension.
- The Ohio Supreme Court adopted the board’s findings, found aggravating (selfish motive, multiple offenses, harm to a vulnerable individual) and mitigating factors (no prior record, cooperation, restitution, character evidence), and imposed the recommended suspension with conditions and monitored probation on reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Disciplinary Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Schuman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schuman committed professional misconduct by collecting an illegal/clearly excessive fee and making misrepresentations to a tribunal | Schuman omitted material facts, sought payment above the approved rate, filed a misleading affidavit, and used court processes to collect excess fees — violating fee, candor, and misconduct rules | Admitted misconduct but framed it as an isolated lapse in an otherwise exemplary career and emphasized mitigation (restitution, cooperation, character) | Found misconduct: violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a), 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) were adopted by the Court |
| Appropriate sanction for repeated dishonesty and misrepresentation to a court | Suspension is warranted to protect the public and the integrity of the judiciary; dishonesty to courts generally merits actual suspension | Requested a fully stayed suspension given mitigating factors and character evidence | One-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions (conditions include CLE in law-office management, no further misconduct, restitution, and monitored probation upon reinstatement) |
| Weight of mitigating evidence versus need to deter and protect public | Aggravating factors (selfish motive, multiple offenses, harm) outweigh mitigation; misrepresentations to a court are especially serious | Mitigation (no prior record, cooperation, restitution, 55 character letters) should avoid actual suspension | Court considered mitigation but concluded public protection and deterrence required an actual suspension; partial stay conditioned on requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Miller, 132 Ohio St.3d 63, 969 N.E.2d 239 (suspension for false statements and nondisclosure) (supports suspension for dishonesty to courts)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Rohrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 65, 919 N.E.2d 180 (suspension for violating court order and making false statements) (dishonesty warrants suspension)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. DeMarco, 144 Ohio St.3d 248, 41 N.E.3d 1237 (suspension for repeated false statements to court) (material misrepresentations to a court justify actual suspension)
- Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vardiman, 146 Ohio St.3d 23, 51 N.E.3d 587 (suspension for forging signatures and filing false documents) (pattern of deceit merits suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237 (misrepresentation to court undermines public trust) (discipline serves to maintain public confidence in lawyers’ honesty)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204, 815 N.E.2d 286 (primary purpose of discipline is public protection) (sanctions aim to protect public and deter misconduct)