Columbus Bar Assn. v. Gaba - 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

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Gaba, 98 Ohio St.3d 351, 2003-Ohio-1012.]

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. GABA.
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Gaba, 98 Ohio St.3d 351, 2003-Ohio-1012.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Engaging in conduct
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law -- Collecting an illegal or
clearly excessive fee -- Aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice
of law -- Neglect of an entrusted legal matter -- Failing to carry out
contract of employment -- Failing to register the employment of a
suspended attorney with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
(No. 2002-2150 -- Submitted January 8, 2003 -- Decided March 19, 2003.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-67.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} On August 12, 2002, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging respondent, Elizabeth Nancy Gaba of Columbus, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0063152, with violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline considered the matter on the parties' consent-to-discipline agreement
that was entered into pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(A)(3)(c) and Section 11 of the
Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The panel accepted
the statement of facts set forth therein, which included the following.
{¶2} The complaint charged respondent with two counts of misconduct
involving her representation of two separate clients. Respondent acknowledged
that during conversations that occurred between nonattorney staff members and
clients, two of her clients could have believed that they were speaking with a

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
licensed attorney. Although she was not present during the conversations,
respondent admitted her responsibility for the ambiguity. Respondent also
admitted that she had failed to adequately supervise nonlawyer staff members
who had exceeded their authority by offering legal advice to one client about the
differences between divorce and dissolution.
{¶3} Respondent further admitted that her nonattorney staff members
provided two clients with estimates of legal fees. Respondent also acknowledged
that there were moderate delays in performing legal services in regard to two
clients, although respondent believes that none of these delays actually prejudiced
those clients.
{¶4} Respondent accepted responsibility for failing to promptly refund
the full amount of unearned fees to two clients, and she eventually returned all
fees that they had paid.
{¶5} Finally, respondent conceded that she had failed to register the
employment of a suspended attorney with Disciplinary Counsel, as required by
Gov.Bar R. V(8)(G)(1).
{¶6} Relying on the parties' agreement, the panel concurred that
respondent had violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. As to Count
One of the complaint, respondent admitted violating DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in
conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer's fitness to practice law), 3-101(A)
(aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting
an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of
employment), and Gov.Bar R. V(8)(G)(1) (failing to register the employment of a
suspended attorney with Disciplinary Counsel).
{¶7} As to Count Two, respondent admitted violating DR 2-106(A)
(collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 3-101(A), 7-101(A)(2), and
Gov.Bar R. V(8)(G)(1). The panel accepted relator's withdrawal of the remaining
violations alleged in the complaint.
2

January Term, 2003
{¶8} The panel acknowledged that respondent had no prior disciplinary
record, had not acted out of a dishonest or selfish motive, and that respondent,
despite some delay, did refund all fees paid by the clients in question. In addition,
respondent promptly returned all files and client materials upon termination of her
services, cooperated fully in the investigation into her misconduct, and agreed to
all the recommended sanctions. The parties averred that there were no
aggravating factors relating either to respondent's conduct or the violations
alleged.
{¶9} The panel recommended the sanctions suggested by the parties that
respondent (1) receive a public reprimand; (2) accept relator's assignment of a
monitor for one year to assist in the administration of her law practice; (3) take
appropriate steps to prohibit any contact with or activity by her husband,
Lawrence Gaba, in her law practice; and (4) pay the costs of this action. The
board adopted the panel's findings of misconduct and recommendation.
{¶10} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 2-106(A), 3-
101(A), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and Gov.Bar R. V(8)(G)(1), as found by the
board. We also agree that the sanctions recommended by the board, as set forth
by the parties in the consent agreement,1 are appropriate.
Judgment accordingly.

1.
{¶a}
The sanctions recommended by the board as set forth by the parties in the consent to
discipline agreement include:

{¶b}
"a. a public reprimand;

{¶c}
"b. the assignment by the [Columbus Bar Association] of a monitor for one year
following the date of acceptance of this Agreement by the Board to assist Gaba in the administration of
her law practice;

{¶d}
"c. a commitment by Gaba that there shall be no contact between her clients and her
husband, Lawrence Gaba, a suspended attorney. In addition, Gaba will not permit, tolerate or suffer
any conduct or activity on the part of Lawrence Gaba which constitutes any activity relating to Gaba's
law practice, nor shall he have any supervisory authority over any of Gaba's staff for any reason.
Subject to the terms set forth herein, Gaba may utilize transportation in connection with her law
practice that is provided by Lawrence Gaba.

{¶e}
"d. the costs of this action to be paid by Gaba."
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG
STRATTON and O'CONNOR, JJ., concur.
__________________

Thompson Hine, L.L.P., and Laura A. Hauser; Vorys, Sater, Seymour &
Pease, L.L.P., and James E. Phillips; Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and Jill M.
Snitcher McQuain, Assistant Bar Counsel, for relator.

Wolman, Genshaft & Gellman and Benson A. Wolman, for respondent.
__________________
4