Columbus Bar Assn. v. Torian - 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. Torian, 106 Ohio St.3d 14, 2005-Ohio-3216.]

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. TORIAN.
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Torian,
106 Ohio St.3d 14, 2005-Ohio-3216.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to
practice -- Neglect of entrusted legal matters -- Failure to cooperate in
disciplinary investigation -- Failure to advise clients of lack of
malpractice insurance -- Conduct prejudicial to administration of justice
-- Accepting an excessive fee -- Failure to seek objectives of client --
Failure to carry out contract of employment -- Failure to deliver funds or
other property of client -- Indefinite suspension.
(No. 2004-2077 -- Submitted February 16, 2005 -- Decided July 13, 2005.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-020.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Respondent, Mary Ann Torian of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0043641, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1989.
{¶ 2} On April 30, 2004, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed an
amended complaint alleging that respondent had committed multiple violations of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent was served with the
complaint but did not answer, and relator moved for default under Gov.Bar R.
V(6)(F). A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline granted the motion, making findings of misconduct
and a recommendation, all of which the board adopted.
Misconduct
Count One

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 3} In June 2002, David A. Taulker, who was then incarcerated,
retained respondent to help him seek early release on parole. Respondent agreed
to represent Taulker for a fee of $7,500. Over the course of several months,
Taulker paid respondent at least $5,350 toward the total fee.
{¶ 4} At her deposition during relator's investigation of Taulker's
grievance, respondent claimed that she had met on his behalf with a hearing
officer from the Ohio Adult Parole Authority in December 2002 and presented a
memorandum to him about Taulker's parole eligibility. Aside from a brief
reference to a meeting on respondent's calendar, however, respondent could not
produce any documentation to support her claim. Respondent appears to have
taken no further action on Taulker's case.
{¶ 5} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney's fitness to
practice law) and 6-101(A)(3) (barring an attorney from neglecting an entrusted
legal matter).
Count Two
{¶ 6} The relator sent two letters to respondent in March 2003 asking her
to respond to Taulker's grievance, but respondent did not reply for over six
months. Relator also subpoenaed respondent in September 2003, directing her to
bring documents to and appear for her deposition. Respondent appeared for her
deposition but did not provide all of the documents requested in the subpoena.
{¶ 7} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(6) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring attorneys to cooperate with and
assist in any disciplinary investigation).
Count Three
{¶ 8} At her deposition, respondent acknowledged that she had allowed
her professional-liability insurance to lapse in August 2002, a fact that she
claimed to have only recently realized. She also conceded at the deposition that
2

January Term, 2005
she had not advised any of her clients in writing about her lack of professional-
liability insurance.
{¶ 9} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-104
(requiring an attorney who does not maintain adequate professional-liability
insurance to so advise his or her clients in writing).
Count Four
{¶ 10} In September 2002, Benny Bonanno asked respondent to represent
him and file an application for an executive pardon on his behalf. Respondent
requested a fee of $7,500, which Bonanno paid in full that same month.
Respondent told Bonanno that she would apply for his pardon by December 1,
2002, but failed to do so. Bonanno terminated the representation in February
2003 and asked that respondent deliver his file and a partial refund of $7,000 to
him. Respondent never replied, never returned the file or the fee, and never
revealed her lack of malpractice insurance.
{¶ 11} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(5) (barring conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-
102(A)(6), 1-104, 2-106(A) (prohibiting an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1) (requiring an attorney to seek the lawful objectives of a
client through reasonable means), 7-101(A)(2) (requiring a lawyer to carry out a
contract of employment), and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring prompt payment of the
client's funds or other property in the lawyer's possession). Moreover, because
respondent had ignored relator's investigative inquiries about Bonanno's
grievance, the board found a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
Count Five
{¶ 12} In May 1999, Merle and Karen Lawson met with respondent to
discuss postconviction remedies available to their daughter, Melissa Grasa, who
was incarcerated. Respondent advised the Lawsons that she could file an
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
application for commutation with the Ohio Parole Board on Grasa's behalf, and
she requested a $7,500 retainer, which the Lawsons paid.
{¶ 13} Respondent gathered documents from Grasa and others over the
course of several months but never filed the application as she had promised.
During an 18-month period in 2000 and 2001, the Lawsons tried repeatedly and
without success to speak with respondent by telephone about their daughter's
case. The respondent finally agreed to meet with them in July 2002, and at that
meeting, she again promised to file the commutation application. She never did
so. The Lawsons terminated the representation in March 2003 and asked that
respondent account for the $7,500 they had paid her and refund the unearned
portion. Respondent never replied, never returned the Grasa case file or the fee,
and never revealed the lapse of her malpractice insurance.
{¶ 14} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104, 2-106(A), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2),
and 9-102(B)(4). The board found a third violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
because respondent had also ignored relator's investigative inquiries about the
Grasa grievance.
Sanction
{¶ 15} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline ("BCGD Proc.Reg."). As
aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had committed a pattern of
misconduct and multiple offenses, had not cooperated, had refused to
acknowledge her wrongdoing, had harmed vulnerable victims, and had failed to
make restitution. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i). The
board cited several mitigating factors, including the absence of any prior
disciplinary record, the occurrence of a serious illness and two deaths in
4

January Term, 2005
respondent's family during a short period of time, and respondent's efforts to seek
help for her emotional distress through her church. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).
{¶ 16} Relator recommended that respondent's license to practice law be
indefinitely suspended for her misconduct. The master commissioner and the
board accepted this recommendation.
{¶ 17} We agree that respondent violated all of the provisions cited in the
board's report, and we also agree that an indefinite suspension is appropriate. As
we have consistently held, neglect of legal matters and the failure to cooperate in
the ensuing disciplinary investigation warrant an indefinite suspension from the
practice of law. Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff, 104 Ohio St.3d 336, 2004-Ohio-
6562, 819 N.E.2d 695, ¶ 16. And the act of accepting retainers or legal fees and
failing to carry out contracts of employment is tantamount to theft of the fee from
the client. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 104 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-Ohio-
6897, 819 N.E.2d 1112, ¶ 16. Respondent's misconduct reflects poorly on the
legal profession and caused harm to the clients whose legal matters she neglected.
{¶ 18} Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law in Ohio. Moreover, upon any petition for reinstatement she files,
respondent shall be required to show, in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar
R.V(10), that she has made full restitution to the clients in Counts I, IV, and V.
Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR,
O'DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur.
__________________

Bruce A. Campbell, Jill M. Snitcher McQuain, and John K. McManus, for
relator.
______________________
3