The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 175 Ohio St.3d 466.]
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. KAISER.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Kaiser, 2024-Ohio-2788.]
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
including Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable
diligence in representing a client), 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit
into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in
advance), 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly refund any unearned fee
upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment), and 8.1(a) (prohibiting a
lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact in
connection with a disciplinary matter)—Conditionally stayed one-year
suspension.
(No. 2024-0171—Submitted March 12, 2024—Decided July 25, 2024.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct
of the Supreme Court, No. 2023-017.
__________________
The per curiam opinion below was joined by FISCHER, DEWINE,
DONNELLY, STEWART, and DETERS, JJ. KENNEDY, C.J., concurred in part and
dissented in part, with an opinion. BRUNNER, J., did not participate.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jo Ellen Kaiser, of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0072449, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2000.
{¶ 2} In a June 2023 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged
Kaiser with multiple violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct related
to a single client matter. Among other things, relator alleged that Kaiser accepted
the client’s retainer and then failed to perform any work on the client’s behalf, failed
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
to deposit the retainer into her client trust account, failed to promptly refund the
retainer upon the termination of her representation, and submitted false statements
to relator during the ensuing disciplinary investigation.
{¶ 3} The parties submitted 16 stipulated exhibits, and the matter proceeded
to a hearing before a three-member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct in
November 2023. The panel heard testimony from Kaiser and the client involved in
the complaint. Following the hearing, the panel unanimously dismissed one alleged
rule violation. The panel later issued a report finding that Kaiser’s conduct had
violated four professional-conduct rules. The panel recommended that Kaiser be
suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully stayed on the conditions that
she complete six hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) focused on law-
office management within 90 days of this court’s order in this case and commit no
further misconduct. The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommended sanction. No objections have been filed.
{¶ 4} After a thorough review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings
of misconduct and recommended sanction.
MISCONDUCT
{¶ 5} In February 2022, Tina Preece hired Kaiser to represent her in a
custody matter involving Preece’s daughter and granddaughter. At that time,
Preece paid Kaiser a $200 cash retainer. The only identifying information Kaiser
obtained from Preece was her name and her daughter’s last name. Kaiser did not
request or obtain Preece’s phone number, address, or email address. Instead of
depositing the $200 payment into her client trust account, Kaiser wrote the name
“Tina” on a file folder, clipped the cash to that folder, and put the folder into a desk
drawer.
{¶ 6} According to Preece, she called Kaiser in March after receiving notice
of an April 5 hearing in juvenile court. Although Preece left a voicemail message
that included the juvenile-court case number, Kaiser never returned her call.
2
January Term, 2024
{¶ 7} Kaiser did not appear at the April 5 hearing. Later that month, Preece
went to Kaiser’s office and requested a refund of her $200 payment. Kaiser refused
to refund the money despite not having performed any work for Preece. Preece’s
fiancé made a videorecording of a portion of that meeting, during which Kaiser
(1) acknowledged that she had received $200 from Preece and (2) denied that she
had received a call from Preece and then claimed that she had returned a call from
Preece and suggested that Preece had failed to return her call.
{¶ 8} In August 2022, relator sent Kaiser a letter of inquiry regarding
Preece’s grievance, which disclosed the existence of a recording of the April
meeting. A month later, in her written response to the letter of inquiry, Kaiser
acknowledged Preece’s allegations that she had spoken with Kaiser at Kaiser’s
office and that her subsequent calls to Kaiser had not been returned. Kaiser stated,
however, that upon reviewing her appointment book and call logs and searching
her computer, she found no record of “the name Tina Preece” and that she was
unaware of “any communication from Ms. Preece for any representation by [her]
office.”
{¶ 9} In October 2022, relator sent Kaiser a second letter of inquiry, asking
her several clarifying questions. Kaiser responded to those questions, stating that
(1) she never represented Preece, (2) Preece did not pay her $200 or any other
amount, and (3) Preece did not appear at her office in February 2022 to discuss
legal representation.
{¶ 10} In December 2022, relator provided Kaiser with a copy of the
videorecording of her April meeting with Preece. Relator had asked Kaiser to
review the video and explain her previous statements that she never represented
Preece or received $200 from Preece. In response to that request, Kaiser suggested
that because she was a defense attorney, she responded to relator’s letters of inquiry
by denying all the allegations, and she claimed that she needed additional
information before she could “more fully answer [relator’s] inquiries.”
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 11} The records for Kaiser’s own phone, which were submitted as
stipulated exhibits at her disciplinary hearing, confirmed that she received a 29-
second call from Preece’s phone number on March 16, 2022, and that the call was
transferred to her voicemail inbox. The phone records also confirmed that Preece
called Kaiser three times in April 2022 and that the calls lasted between 28 and 53
seconds.
{¶ 12} In her testimony before the hearing panel, Kaiser admitted that she
never called Preece. Kaiser also reiterated that she had responded to relator’s
inquiries “very much like a defense attorney,” “denying everything” and then
waiting for relator to provide more information. She testified that there was nothing
in relator’s original letter—such as the name of the case or the case number—that
would have allowed her to determine what she may have done for Preece. Kaiser
eventually admitted in her testimony that her previous denials were false. She also
testified that she refunded Preece’s $200 payment within several months of her
November 2023 disciplinary hearing.
{¶ 13} The board found that Kaiser’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3
(requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.15(c)
(requiring a lawyer to deposit into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that
have been paid in advance), 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly refund any
unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment), and 8.1(a)
(prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact in
connection with a disciplinary matter). We adopt the board’s findings of
misconduct.
SANCTION
{¶ 14} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorney violated, the
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions
imposed in similar cases.
4
January Term, 2024
{¶ 15} The board found that seven aggravating factors are present in this
case, including (1) a dishonest or selfish motive, (2) multiple offenses, (3) a lack of
cooperation in the disciplinary process, (4) the submission of false evidence or
statements or engagement in other deceptive practices during the disciplinary
proceedings, (5) a refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the misconduct,
(6) harm to a vulnerable client—apparently occasioned by Kaiser’s delay in
refunding the $200 retainer, and (7) a failure to make timely and good-faith
restitution. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2), and (4) through (9). As for mitigating
factors, the board found that Kaiser had no disciplinary record and presented
evidence of her good character and reputation in the form of letters from two
attorneys familiar with her practice. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and (5).
{¶ 16} During her disciplinary hearing, Kaiser testified that she was
diagnosed with cancer in April 2022 and commenced a course of chemotherapy
and radiation sometime after June 1, 2022. We note, however, that her misconduct
began two months before her diagnosis and, with the exception of suggesting that
her treatment delayed her response to relator’s initial inquiry, she has presented no
evidence showing that her medical condition had any effect on her conduct in this
case.
{¶ 17} In relator’s posthearing brief, relator argued that Kaiser’s
misconduct warrants a conditionally stayed one-year suspension from the practice
of law. In her posthearing brief, Kaiser urged the board to dismiss the complaint
or impose a sanction no greater than a public reprimand. The board recommends
that to protect the public, Kaiser should be suspended from the practice of law for
one year, fully stayed on the conditions that she complete six hours of CLE on law-
office management within 90 days of the date of our order in this case and commit
no further misconduct.
{¶ 18} In reaching that recommendation, the board considered and rejected
two cases advanced by Kaiser to support her argument that she should receive no
5
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
greater than a public reprimand for her misconduct. In one of those cases, Medina
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schriver, 2022-Ohio-486, ¶ 2-7, 17, we publicly reprimanded
Schriver, an attorney who had neglected a single client matter, failed to promptly
issue a refund to that client, and failed to respond to relator’s letters of inquiry. But
Kaiser’s misconduct is more serious than Schriver’s. While Kaiser did not fail to
respond to relator’s letters of inquiry—though her response to the initial letter of
inquiry was delayed—she affirmatively made multiple false statements to relator
during the disciplinary investigation and admitted the falsity of those statements
only in her testimony before the panel.
{¶ 19} In the other case relied on by Kaiser and considered by the board,
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Zaffiro, 2010-Ohio-4830, ¶ 6, Zaffiro failed to
inform a client that he did not carry professional-liability insurance, failed to
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation, and made a single false
statement to relator in which he agreed to provide relator with information
regarding his professional-liability insurance when no such policy existed. We
publicly reprimanded Zaffiro for his misconduct. Id. at ¶ 11. But Kaiser’s false
statements alone far exceed Zaffiro’s misconduct.
{¶ 20} The board also considered four cases in which we imposed
conditionally stayed one-year suspensions on attorneys who engaged in misconduct
comparable to that of Kaiser: Disciplinary Counsel v. Devanney, 2021-Ohio-1201;
Disciplinary Counsel v. Kendrick, 2016-Ohio-5600; Disciplinary Counsel v.
Ferfolia, 2022-Ohio-4220; and Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Mariotti, 2019-Ohio-
5191.
{¶ 21} In Devanney, we imposed a conditionally stayed one-year
suspension on an attorney who neglected a single client matter involving two
clients, failed to respond to the clients’ reasonable requests for information, failed
to promptly refund the clients’ unearned fee upon termination of her representation,
6
January Term, 2024
and made false statements to a law-enforcement officer and the clients regarding
the status of that refund.
{¶ 22} In Kendrick, the attorney neglected two client matters, Kendrick at
¶ 5, 7, in contrast to Kaiser’s neglect of one client matter. Kendrick also failed to
reasonably communicate with a client and to deposit fee payments into her client
trust account in both client matters. Id. In contrast to Kaiser, who made multiple
false statements to relator in this case, Kendrick’s dishonest conduct consisted of a
single incident in which she used money she had received in one client matter to
pay another client’s filing fee. Id. at ¶ 5-8. While seven aggravating factors are
present in Kaiser’s case, the only aggravating factor in Kendrick was that she
committed multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, id. at ¶ 11.
Mitigating factors in Kendrick included her timely, good-faith effort to make
restitution, full cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, evidence of her good
character and reputation, and the existence of a qualifying mental disorder. Id. at
¶ 10. We imposed a one-year suspension for Kendrick’s misconduct and stayed the
entire suspension on the conditions that she serve a period of monitored probation,
submit to a psychological assessment, comply with all recommendations arising
from that assessment, make restitution of $2,000 to one of her clients, and commit
no further misconduct. Id. at ¶ 15.
{¶ 23} Like Kaiser, the attorney in Ferfolia neglected a single client matter.
2022-Ohio-4220 at ¶ 1. Specifically, Ferfolia failed to take timely action in
representing a husband and wife who were seeking long-term-care Medicaid
benefits for the husband. Id. Ferfolia also failed to comply with reasonable
requests for information from the wife and others involved in the husband’s care.
Id. at ¶ 8-10. As a result of Ferfolia’s neglect, the clients incurred over $87,000 in
nursing-home expenses that otherwise would have been covered by Medicaid. Id.
at ¶ 10. In comparison, the harm in this case was occasioned by Kaiser’s delay of
approximately 16 months in refunding Preece’s $200 retainer. Ferfolia also
7
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
engaged in dishonest conduct by falsely leading his clients and others, including
the clients’ legal-malpractice attorney, to believe that he had submitted a claim on
the clients’ behalf with his professional-liability-insurance carrier, id. at ¶ 11-13,
and by repeatedly making false claims and assurances to relator regarding his
response to the clients’ grievance, which he never submitted to relator, id. at ¶ 15-
17.
{¶ 24} Three aggravating factors were present in Ferfolia: (1) a dishonest
or selfish motive, (2) multiple offenses, and (3) harm to vulnerable clients. Id. at
¶ 19. Mitigating factors included Ferfolia’s clean disciplinary record, his eventual
cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, and evidence of his good character and
reputation. Id. at ¶ 20. We suspended Ferfolia from the practice of law for one
year, fully stayed on conditions that required him to submit to an assessment by the
Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program and comply with any treatment
recommendations, pay the balance of the professional-malpractice judgment
entered against him, and commit no further misconduct. Id. at ¶ 29.
{¶ 25} Finally, the board considered Mariotti, 2019-Ohio-5191.1 Mariotti
neglected a client’s legal matter, twice lied to that client about the status of the
matter, and failed to communicate the limited scope of his representation to another
client. Id. at ¶ 6-8, 12, 15-16. He also failed to attend one hearing for each client,
failed to reasonably communicate with the clients, failed to deposit an unearned fee
into his client trust account, and failed to inform the clients that he did not carry
professional-liability insurance. Id. at ¶ 6-9, 11, 14-16. In addition, Mariotti failed
to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation until he was compelled by
subpoena to do so. Id. at ¶ 18. Also, Mariotti’s failure to timely answer the formal
disciplinary complaint against him resulted in the imposition of a brief interim
1. Although the board cited Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Mariotti, 2018-Ohio-4769, the board’s
analysis demonstrates that the board actually considered Mariotti, 2019-Ohio-5191, a later decision
in the same case.
8
January Term, 2024
default suspension before the matter was remanded (on his motion) to the board for
proceedings on the merits. Id. at ¶ 3.
{¶ 26} Five aggravating factors were present in Mariotti: (1) prior CLE and
registration suspensions, (2) a dishonest or selfish motive, (3) a pattern of
misconduct, (4) multiple offenses, and (5) the interim default suspension imposed
for the initial failure to cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings. Id. at ¶ 21.
Mitigating factors included Mariotti’s cooperative attitude during the disciplinary
hearing and his genuine remorse. Id. We suspended Mariotti from the practice of
law for one year, fully stayed on the conditions that he complete six hours of CLE
focused on law-office management, serve a one-year period of monitored
probation, and engage in no further misconduct. Id. at ¶ 28.
{¶ 27} In this case, Kaiser accepted $200 from Preece as a retainer for her
representation in a custody matter. Kaiser did not, however, request or obtain even
the most basic information necessary to accomplish that representation—e.g., an
address or a phone number by which she could reach Preece to discuss her case.
Although Preece gave Kaiser her first and last names, Kaiser recorded just Preece’s
first name on the outside of a file folder, clipped the $200 cash payment to the
folder, and then put the folder into a desk drawer. She then failed to return Preece’s
phone calls both before and after she failed to appear at a court hearing in Preece’s
custody case.
{¶ 28} While Kaiser’s conduct fell below the standard of reasonable
diligence in representing a client set forth in Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and the standard for
proper handling of client funds set forth in Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c), Kaiser likely could
have avoided this entire disciplinary proceeding by accepting responsibility for her
conduct from the beginning, apologizing to Preece for her neglect, and honoring
Preece’s request for a refund. Instead, Kaiser reacted to what she called Preece’s
“very accusatory manner” by suggesting that Preece had been to blame for Kaiser’s
inaction and refusal to refund Preece’s $200 payment. In August 2022, relator
9
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
notified Kaiser that her meeting with Preece had been recorded. Moreover, Kaiser
was duty-bound to cooperate in relator’s investigation under Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b)
and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) (respectively, requiring an attorney to cooperate in a
disciplinary investigation and prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting or refusing to
assist in a disciplinary investigation). Despite her ethical duties and her knowledge
that Preece claimed to have a recording of Kaiser admitting that she had received
$200 from Preece, Kaiser falsely told relator that Preece never appeared at her
office in February 2022 to discuss legal representation, that she never represented
Preece, and that Preece did not pay her $200 or any other amount.
{¶ 29} Even after Kaiser viewed the videorecording of her April 2022
interaction with Preece, she did not acknowledge the falsity of her previous denials
regarding her representation of Preece. Nor did she promptly refund the unearned
fee to Preece. Rather, she claimed that she needed additional information from
relator—including a case number—so that she could fully investigate Preece’s
allegations.
{¶ 30} Although Kaiser eventually admitted in her testimony before the
panel that she had falsely denied the allegations against her, she did not
acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct. Instead, she chose to blame her
blanket denial of the allegations on her experience as a defense attorney and to
claim that she had “just wanted information” and had “needed [information] so
badly.” Neither Kaiser’s experience as a defense attorney nor her purported need
for more information excuse her deceit. Furthermore, the record in this case plainly
demonstrates that no amount of additional information could have aided Kaiser,
because she had not obtained any additional information from Preece or generated
any records. Therefore, she had no documents to review to refresh her recollection.
{¶ 31} On these facts, we find that Kaiser’s misconduct is more serious than
the misconduct at issue in Schriver and Zaffiro and therefore requires a sanction
greater than the public reprimands that we imposed in those cases. We agree with
10
January Term, 2024
the board’s conclusion that Kaiser’s misconduct falls squarely within the spectrum
of misconduct addressed in Devanney, Kendrick, Ferfolia, and Mariotti and that
her conduct warrants a sanction comparable to the sanctions imposed in those cases
to protect the public from further harm. We therefore adopt the board’s
recommendation that Kaiser be suspended from the practice of law for one year,
with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions recommended by the board.
CONCLUSION
{¶ 32} Accordingly, Jo Ellen Kaiser is suspended from the practice of law
in Ohio for one year, fully stayed on the conditions that she complete six hours of
CLE focused on law-office management within 90 days of the date of this court’s
order in this case and commit no further misconduct. If Kaiser fails to comply with
any condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and she will serve the full one-year
suspension. Costs are taxed to Kaiser.
Judgment accordingly.
_________________
KENNEDY, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 33} I concur in part in the majority’s decision because I agree with the
majority’s findings regarding respondent Jo Ellen Kaiser’s violations of the Ohio
Rules of Professional Conduct, the aggravating factors, and the mitigating factors.
However, I dissent from the majority’s decision to suspend Kaiser from the practice
of law for one year with the entire suspension stayed on conditions. In my view,
Kaiser’s misconduct warrants more than a fully stayed suspension. Kaiser
neglected a client matter, attempted to steal $200 from the client by refusing to
refund the retainer that the client had paid to her, lied to the client, and lied to
relator, disciplinary counsel. Based on our caselaw, I would indefinitely suspend
Kaiser from the practice of law.
{¶ 34} We have recognized that “the presumptive sanction for neglect of
client matters coupled with the failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary
11
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
investigation is an indefinite suspension from the practice of law.” Disciplinary
Counsel v. Engel, 2018-Ohio-2988, ¶ 13. Here, Kaiser neglected a legal matter by
not appearing on behalf of her client, Tina Preece, at an April 5, 2022 custody
hearing that Preece had informed her about. Kaiser then failed to cooperate in the
ensuing disciplinary investigation by lying to disciplinary counsel, stating that
(1) she never represented Preece, (2) Preece did not pay her $200 or any other
amount, and (3) Preece did not discuss the legal representation with Kaiser at
Kaiser’s office in February 2022.
{¶ 35} There have been cases in which the respondent attorney overcame a
presumption in favor of an indefinite suspension and we imposed a lesser sanction,
but in those cases the attorney’s misconduct either did not cause irreparable harm
to a client or did not involve dishonesty. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v.
Hallquist, 2011-Ohio-1819, ¶ 12, 15-16; Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marosan, 2005-
Ohio-5412, ¶ 24-25. For example, in Hallquist, we imposed a two-year suspension,
with the last six months stayed on conditions, because “although serious, [the
attorney’s] misconduct [did] not cause[] irreparable harm to any clients.” Hallquist
at ¶ 15. Similarly, in Marosan, we imposed a two-year suspension, with 18 months
stayed, because “the [attorney’s] misconduct, while serious, did not involve
dishonesty and did not result in irreparable harm to his clients.” Marosan at ¶ 24.
{¶ 36} In Hallquist and Marosan, the attorneys failed to cooperate in the
disciplinary proceedings by not responding to the relators’ requests for information.
Hallquist at ¶ 7-8; Marosan at ¶ 11, 20, 23. Unlike the attorneys in Hallquist and
Marosan, Kaiser failed to cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings by explicitly
lying to disciplinary counsel. Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a), which this court finds Kaiser
violated, prohibits an attorney from “knowingly mak[ing] a false statement of
material fact” in connection with a disciplinary matter. And any “false and
inconsistent statements [made] during the disciplinary process [will be considered]
aggravating factors weighing in favor of a greater sanction,” Disciplinary Counsel
12
January Term, 2024
v. Jackson, 2010-Ohio-5709, ¶ 15, reinstatement granted, 2019-Ohio-1566. When
an attorney violates Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a), “an actual suspension is necessary,”
Disciplinary Counsel v. Meyer, 2012-Ohio-5487, ¶ 12, because an attorney must be
forthright and honest once he or she is in the realm of a disciplinary investigation.
And because Kaiser’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a) and involved
dishonesty, the presumption in favor of an indefinite suspension has not been
overcome.
{¶ 37} The majority properly acknowledges that “[n]either Kaiser’s
experience as a defense attorney nor her purported need for more information
excuse her deceit.” Majority opinion, ¶ 30. But the majority fails to follow
precedent to appropriately sanction her deceit. Given the presumption of an
indefinite suspension that we have established for cases in which the attorney
neglected a client matter and failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary
investigation by being dishonest, an indefinite suspension is the only proper
sanction here. Additionally, imposition of an indefinite suspension for Kaiser’s
misconduct would “‘demonstrat[e] to the bar and the public that this type of conduct
will not be tolerated,’” Disciplinary Counsel v. Nowicki, 2023-Ohio-3079, ¶ 83
(Kennedy, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting Disciplinary
Counsel v. Schuman, 2017-Ohio-8800, ¶ 17. Therefore, I would impose an
indefinite suspension for Kaiser’s misconduct. Because the majority holds
otherwise, I dissent in part.
_________________
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Matthew A. Kanai and
Benjamin B. Nelson, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., and Alvin E. Mathews Jr., for respondent.
_________________
13