# Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder

> Ohio Supreme Court · November 9, 1999 · 87 Ohio St. 3d 211

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151353

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 9, 1999
- **Citations:** 87 Ohio St. 3d 211; 1999 Ohio 34
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151353

## Opinion text

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 87 Ohio St.3d 211.]

AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. SNYDER.
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder, 1999-Ohio-34.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Neglecting an entrusted
legal matter—Failing to promptly notify client of receipt of funds—Failing
to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation—Failing to promptly pay or
deliver funds to a client upon request—Current charges occurred at the
same time as those involved in previous disciplinary case which resulted
in an indefinite suspension.
(No. 99-1165—Submitted August 25, 1999—Decided November 10, 1999.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-21.
__________________
{¶ 1} On February 18, 1997, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging respondent, Scott W. Snyder of Canal Fulton, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0030089, with violating several Disciplinary Rules. After being
served, respondent failed to file an answer, and the matter was submitted to a panel
of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
(“board”) on relator’s motion for a default judgment and attached exhibits.
{¶ 2} The panel found that Bonnie Shalhoub retained respondent in
connection with a debt collection matter. Respondent settled the dispute, and the
debtor agreed to make payments to Shalhoub through respondent. Respondent
deducted his one-third contingent fee and forwarded four payments in 1992 and
three payments in 1993 to Shalhoub. Respondent then stopped transmitting further
payments, although he owed Shalhoub $3,064. Despite numerous attempts to
contact respondent, Shalhoub did not hear from him after she received a check from
him in October 1993. In 1996, Shalhoub filed a grievance with relator, and
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

respondent failed to respond to telephone calls and letters during relator’s
investigation of the grievance. According to the panel, the Clients’ Security Fund
awarded Shalhoub $1,352.46 based on respondent’s misconduct.
{¶ 3} The panel further found that Mary Conner paid respondent a $1,500
retainer to probate her mother’s estate. Respondent never filed an inventory and
never paid estate taxes despite Conner’s delivery of a check to him to pay those
taxes. The probate court removed respondent as counsel for the estate, and Conner
retained another attorney to complete the administration of the estate. After Conner
filed a grievance with relator, respondent failed to respond to relator’s telephone
calls and letters during its investigation of the grievance. Conner requested
reimbursement of $1,895.68 from the Clients’ Security Fund.
{¶ 4} In mitigation, the panel found that from 1994 to 1996, respondent had
been treated by a psychiatrist after his father’s death in March 1993. The panel
noted that we had previously indefinitely suspended respondent from the practice
of law in Ohio for conduct occurring at the same time as the charges here. Akron
Bar Assn. v. Snyder (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 57, 676 N.E.2d 504.
{¶ 5} The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct in the Shalhoub matter
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 9-102(B)(1)
(failing to promptly notify client of receipt of her funds), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
(failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). For the Conner matter, the
panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(B)(4)
(failing to promptly pay or deliver funds to a client upon request), and Gov.Bar R.
V(4)(G). The panel recommended that because these charges occurred at the same
time as those involved in respondent’s previous disciplinary case, respondent
should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The panel also
recommended that respondent should make restitution to his clients and the Clients’
Security Fund. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation
of the panel.

2
January Term, 1999

__________________
Amer Cunnigham Brennan Co., L.P.A., and John C. Weisensell; Michael C.
Scanlon; Stark & Knoll Co., L.P.A., and Michael L. Stark, for relator.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
board. Neglect of legal matters and a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary
investigation generally warrant an indefinite suspension from the practice of law in
Ohio. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rollins (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 408, 410, 704 N.E.2d
1210, 1211. The board properly noted that the misconduct charged in the complaint
occurred in the same period of time as the charges involved in respondent’s
previous disciplinary case, which resulted in an indefinite suspension, and that these
new charges did not require a significantly different sanction. See, e.g., Cuyahoga
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Jaynes (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 245, 246, 611 N.E.2d 807, 808.
Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio and
is ordered to make full restitution to his clients, Shalhoub and Conner, and to the
Clients’ Security Fund. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
COOK, J., dissents.
__________________
COOK, J., dissenting.
{¶ 7} In view of the aggravating factor of respondent’s prior discipline, I
would disbar.
__________________

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151353. Public record. Not legal advice.