Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schoettler - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

1 Butler County Bar Association v. Schoettler.
2 [Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schoettler (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d ____.]
3 Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Neglect of an
4
entrusted legal matter -- Commingling of funds.
5
(No. 95-2534--Submitted January 24, 1996--Decided February 28,
6 1996.)
7
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances
8 and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-16.
9
In a complaint filed with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances
10 and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board"), relator, Butler County Bar
11 Association, charged respondent, Susan Schoettler, last known address in
12 Fairfield, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0037627, with two counts of
13 professional misconduct. Service of the complaint by certified mail was
14 unsuccessful, and the complaint was served on the Clerk of the Supreme
15 Court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B) (clerk is agent for nonresident
16 attorneys or where whereabouts unknown). A panel appointed by the board
17 heard the matter on relator's motion for default, filed pursuant to Gov.Bar
18 R. V(6)(F).

1
Count One of the complaint alleged that respondent had violated,
2 inter alia, DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter), and 9-
3 102(A)(2) (commingling of funds) in representing the Estate of William B.
4 Roof. According to relator's sworn summary of its investigation results,
5 relator accepted a check on March 21, 1990 for $7,010.40 from Janice
6 Revalos, the executor of the estate. Respondent represented to Revalos that
7 $4,287.10 of this amount would be applied for attorney fees due, $2,600
8 would be paid for estate taxes, and $123.30 would be used for court costs.
9 Respondent purportedly advised Revalos that the estate was nearly closed,
10 and Revalos could distribute the assets.
11
Months after her assurances, however, respondent was cited by the
12 probate court for failing to file a required accounting. On September 26,
13 1990, the probate court ordered respondent to show cause why the final
14 accounting had not yet been filed. On the same day, respondent requested
15 $4,287.10 in attorney fees by filing an application in the probate court that
16 may have been forged with Revalos's signature. And nearly two years later,
17 on June 27, 1993, respondent was again ordered to show cause why the final
18 accounting had not been filed. Respondent also failed to appear at a hearing

2

1 scheduled for July 26, 1993, at which Revalos appeared without her.
2 Revalos subsequently discovered that respondent had not paid the estate
3 taxes and penalties had accrued. She also learned that only $1,900 had been
4 due in estate taxes, not $2,600, as represented by respondent.
5
Count Two of the complaint alleged that respondent violated DR 9-
6 102 (failure to preserve identity of client's funds and property, generally) in
7 failing to maintain the IOLTA trust account required by R.C. 4705.09.
8 While employed as a partner in the law firm of Mary G. Nash & Associates,
9 respondent signed checks for office expenses that were drawn on an account
10 purporting to be interest-bearing and exclusively for client funds.
11
The panel granted the motion for default because respondent had
12 failed to answer, and relator had complied with the evidentiary and other
13 requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). The panel also found that respondent
14 had committed the charged violations of DR 6-101(A)(3), [9-102] and 9-
15 102(A)(2). In determining the sanction for this misconduct, the panel
16 considered relator's representations that respondent had been cooperative
17 throughout the investigation, and that as a junior partner, she may have been
18 acting on the poor examples of the other partner in her law firm. The panel

3

1 recommended that respondent receive an indefinite suspension from the
2 practice of law.
3
The board adopted the panel's findings of misconduct and
4 recommended sanction.
5
Bennett A. Manning and Sanford I. Casper, for relator.
6
Per Curiam. Upon review of the record, we concur that respondent
7 committed the misconduct found by the board and agree with its
8 recommendation. Respondent is therefore suspended indefinitely from the
9 practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
10
Judgment accordingly.
11
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER
12 and COOK, JJ., concur.
13

4