Toledo Bar Association v. Crosser
147 Ohio St. 3d 499
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Joan M. Crosser, admitted 1993, was retained in Dec 2013 by Craig and Andrea Schuele to file a change-of-custody motion for Craig.
- Crosser failed to file the motion and did not respond to multiple client status requests over several months.
- To conceal her neglect, Crosser repeatedly misrepresented to the clients that she had filed the motion and would appear at court.
- After discovering no court activity in May 2014, Craig discharged Crosser, requested his file and retainer, and ultimately filed a grievance when the file and refund were delayed.
- Crosser refunded the retainer, returned documents, cooperated in the disciplinary process, and admitted responsibility; the Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.16(d), and 8.4(c).
- The Board recommended a stayed one-year suspension; the Supreme Court accepted the findings and imposed a one-year suspension stayed on condition of no further misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crosser neglected the client and failed to communicate | Relator: Crosser neglected the custody matter and ignored client inquiries, violating diligence and communication rules | Crosser: Delay was negligent but not intended to harm; she later cooperated and remedied harm | Held: Violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4(a)(3) established |
| Whether Crosser failed to promptly deliver client property after termination | Relator: Crosser delayed returning the retainer and file, violating Rule 1.16(d) | Crosser: Returned funds and file after grievance; acted without selfish motive | Held: Violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) established |
| Whether Crosser engaged in dishonest conduct by misrepresenting filings | Relator: Crosser knowingly lied about filings/hearings, violating Rule 8.4(c) | Crosser: Misrepresentations resulted from embarrassment, not selfish exploitation; accepted responsibility | Held: Violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) established |
| Appropriate sanction for neglect and dishonesty | Relator: Suspension appropriate given dishonesty and neglect | Crosser: Mitigating factors (restitution, cooperation, character, lack of harm, prior minimal discipline) justify stayed suspension | Held: One-year suspension, fully stayed on condition of no further misconduct (consistent with precedent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Fumich, 116 Ohio St.3d 257, 878 N.E.2d 6 (2007) (court imposed a stayed one-year suspension for neglect combined with client-directed dishonesty where significant mitigation existed)
- In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Crosser, 130 Ohio St.3d 1420, 956 N.E.2d 310 (2011) (prior attorney-registration suspension for Crosser noted as prior discipline)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Anthony, 138 Ohio St.3d 129, 4 N.E.3d 1006 (2013) (explains that prior registration-suspension constitutes aggravating prior discipline)