Geauga County Bar Ass'n v. Martorana, 997 N.E.2d 486

Geauga County Bar Association alleges Martorana violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct based on ties to a paralegal company and out-of-state counsel, plus charging excessive and nonrefundable fees.
Initial consent-to-discipline proposed a six-month stayed suspension, but the Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings.
On remand, stipulations admitted misconduct and recommended the same six-month stayed suspension; the board found only one violation (1.5) and dismissed the rest.
The board and panel agreed Martorana’s conduct violated 1.5(a) by charging a clearly excessive fee in five mortgage-foreclosure related matters, with restitution made after the complaint.
Martorana’s five clients paid flat fees (roughly $1,695–$2,300) for services MLS did not complete; refunds were partial or refused in several cases; full restitution followed the complaint.
The Court ultimately publically reprimanded Martorana for the single violation, noting mitigating factors (no prior discipline, cooperation, restitution, practice changes) and one aggravating factor (multiple acts).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether charging a clearly excessive fee violated 1.5(a).	Martorana’s fees were clearly excessive under factors in 1.5(a).	Martorana argues the evidence supports no violation beyond what was admitted.	Yes; violation 1.5(a) established.
Whether other alleged misconduct (unauthorized practice, fee sharing, nonrefundable fees, supervision) was proven.	Relator claimed multiple rule violations based on relationships and practices.	Panel/board found insufficient evidence for those charges.	Dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
Appropriate sanction for the misconduct.	Public reprimand or stronger given multiple clients and circumstances.	Sanction urged as six-month suspension stayed.	Public reprimand administered.
Impact of restitution and mitigating factors on sanction.	Restitution and cooperation support a lighter sanction.	Mitigating factors offset aggravating factors.	Mitigating factors present; sanction affirmed.
Whether Harwood guidance applies given differing charges.	Panel relied on Harwood for harsher sanction.	Harwood’s context differs; not controlling here.	Harwood not controlling; public reprimand consistent with similar precedents.

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harwood, 125 Ohio St.3d 31 (2010-Ohio-1466) (foreclosure work with nonattorney alliances; sanction considerations)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 49 (2009-Ohio-5960) (public reprimand for excessive fees; mitigating factors)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Randolph, 85 Ohio St.3d 325 (1999-Ohio-708) (public reprimand for excessive fees; restitution and responsibility)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Seibel, 132 Ohio St.3d 411 (2012-Ohio-3234) (nonrefundable fee; mitigating factors; restitution)
Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rucker, 134 Ohio St.3d 282 (2012-Ohio-5642) (nonrefundable fee; mitigating factors; restitution)
Akron Bar Assn. v. Carr, 131 Ohio St.3d 210 (2012-Ohio-610) (six-month stayed suspension; restitution; aggravation factors)