Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court indefinitely suspended Mary Ann Torian from practicing law after finding multiple violations involving neglect of client matters, failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, lack of professional-liability insurance disclosures, excessive or unearned fees, and failure to return client property. The court also required full restitution to clients in specified counts as a condition of any reinstatement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether respondent committed the charged violations of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
- Whether an indefinite suspension from the practice of law was the appropriate sanction for respondent's neglect of legal matters, failure to perform employment contracts, failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation, and related misconduct.
- Whether restitution to clients in Counts I, IV, and V should be required as a condition of any reinstatement.
Holdings
- Respondent violated all provisions identified in the board's report, including rules prohibiting conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law, neglect of entrusted legal matters, failure to disclose the absence of professional-liability insurance, excessive or improperly retained fees, failure to pursue and carry out client objectives, failure to account for or return client property, and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.
- An indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio was appropriate.
- Any petition for reinstatement must include proof that respondent has made full restitution to the clients identified in Counts I, IV, and V, in addition to satisfying the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10).
Key quotations
“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.” (106 Ohio St. 3d at 17)
“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.” (106 Ohio St. 3d at 17)
Factual background
Torian accepted retainers to pursue parole, pardon, and commutation matters for several clients but failed to perform the promised legal services. She did not respond to client requests, failed to return files or unearned fees, and failed to disclose that her professional-liability insurance had lapsed. She also failed to cooperate fully with the disciplinary investigation and did not answer the complaint.
Procedural history
The Columbus Bar Association filed an amended disciplinary complaint alleging multiple violations of Ohio's Code of Professional Responsibility and disciplinary rules. Torian did not answer, and default was entered under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). The master commissioner and the board found the charged misconduct and recommended an indefinite suspension, which the Supreme Court of Ohio approved.