Ethics and Attorney Misconduct

by Brandi Hintze

Law Office Managerment PAR 130 Instructor Tina Schlievert August 10, 2011

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. PRATT

Gardner Pratt of Loveland, Ohio was charged with a six-count complaint, charging him with unauthorized practice of law. Pratt has never been admitted to practice law in Ohio, but on numerous occasions he stated verbally and/or in writing that he was an attorney who was licensed to practice in Ohio and Florida. He routinely gave legal advice. He negotiated a settlement for a client. He was retained to negotiate a buyout. He drafted legal documents and prepared and reviewed contracts. He accepted fees to which he was not entitled and did not return any fees to his clients when they discovered he was not a licensed attorney. As a result, the court issued an injunction prohibiting Pratt from further engaging in unauthorized practice of law. The court could not temper their decision with any mitigating factors because Pratt neglected to file an answer to the original complaint, would not cooperate with the investigation, and chose to not participate in the proceedings. This resulted in a default judgment against him: a $60,000 civil penalty; $10,000 for each of the six counts against him.

OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. RESNICK

Ramie Ann Resnick was licensed to practice law in Ohio in 1984. In February of 2006, she was convicted of cocaine possession and her law license was suspended for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. In October of the same year, she appeared in court for unrelated charges. Her behavior and demeanor in the court that day prompted the judge to order her to be admitted to a behavioral healthcare center and undergo a mental competency evaluation. The court could not determine if Resnick has a substance abuse problem or a mental health issue. Her suspension continues indefinitely, however Resnick can apply to resume her law practice, with stipulations. In this case, the court in not imposing punitive sanctions on Resnick, but rather seeks to protect the public. Therefore, the following stipulations apply if Resnick is to be reinstated: She must show proof she was evaluated by OLAP (Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program), she must have a report from a qualified mental healthcare professional stating she is competent to practice law, and if reinstated, she must submit to a law practice monitor.

CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. MISHLER

Howard Mishler was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1973. As the result of many clients complaints, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found Mishler had committed more than 50 violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court found evidence to support Mishlers disbarment from practicing law in Ohio. In the cases against Mishler, it was discovered that he never provided written fee contracts or written accounts for the use of retainers, even though multiple requests for such were made from the clients in this case. In the first count, Mishler requested $7,100 from the client to pay taxes on an estate, although there was no evidence of a filed tax return. In this same case, Mishler alleged the clients father died without a will when in fact he died testate. This enabled Mishler to extract more fees from the client to proceed with the case through probate court. Mishler did not notify the bank of the fathers passing until three years after his death which delayed the distribution of trusts to his daughters. In another count, Mishler convinced a client to give him a portion of his reinstated pension check, threatening the client that he would forfeit his right to file a lawsuit if he kept the entire check for himself. Mishler filed a lawsuit against the pensioner on behalf of his client, but he included other plaintiffs in the suit as well. Since Mishler did not tell this to his client, the case was dismissed without prejudice. Mishler appealed the decision but was not successful. All of

this happened without the clients knowledge, and all while Mishlers law license was suspended. The client subsequently asked for the return of his pension money in the amount of $36,783, but Mishler did not return it. In other cases, Mishler charged very large fees for unexplained or unnecessary work, and he often kept most if not all moneys received from settlements. Ultimately, the court found Mishler had a pattern of misconduct involving dishonesty, neglect, incompetence, and mismanagement of client funds which caused significant emotional and financial harm to the clients. During the trial, the clients who testified against Mishler were very upset, but Mishler was argumentative and did not admit to doing anything wrong. He even filed a motion to change his testimony and submit new evidence. His motion, characterized as flapdoodle, was dismissed. Mishler failed to show anything that could mitigate the decision; therefore, the court found disbarment to be the appropriate outcome.