Cuyahoga County Bar Association v. Okocha8/12/1998
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Okocha (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law - Misconduct - Disbarrment - Charging fees that are clearly excessive - Overstating expenses and charging clients for expenses not incurred.
Submitted May 12, 1998
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-111.
Respondent, Nwabueze V. Okocha of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0025024, was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law on June 8, 1994 for charging a clearly excessive fee, for conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and for failing to preserve the identity of a client's funds or property. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Okocha (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 398, 632 N.E.2d 1284.
On March 4, 1997, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed an amended complaint charging that respondent had committed various violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility during the period 1989 through early 1995. Respondent filed his answer, and on May 22, 1997, he filed a motion to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV of the amended complaint, which was denied. On May 27, 1997, respondent filed a complaint in mandamus and prohibition in this court, which we later dismissed sua sponte. State ex rel. Okocha v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 1412, 679 N.E.2d 1138. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline ("board') heard the matter on May 28, 1997. After closing briefs were filed, the relator filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on July 18, 1997, which was accepted by the panel.
The panel found with respect to Count I of the second amended complaint that in 1989 respondent agreed to represent Carol Hagins in a case in common pleas court involving assault and battery, and in an employment discrimination case in federal court. Hagins agreed to pay respondent a nonrefundable retainer of $6,000 and, in addition, forty percent of any money she received as well as the expenses of the cases. The common pleas trial resulted in a judgment in favor of Hagins for $10.
In October 1992, Hagins asked for a breakdown of the expenses incurred by respondent. In May 1993, respondent provided Hagins with an itemization stating that the expenses he incurred on her behalf were $47,212.35. The itemization included amounts paid to Carla Elliott, a law student, and Mary Oluonye, a paralegal, both of whom worked for respondent. The expense itemization also included $11,100 for the employment of four economists as experts. When challenged by Hagins, respondent waived the fee for three of the economists because their services were not used. The one expert who was used, Dr. John Burke, provided a written analysis of Hagins's earning potential, and respondent's itemization indicated that Burke's fee was $4,600. Burke, however, testified that his charge for preparing the Hagins analysis was $2,000 and that it was never paid. Evidence indicated that respondent received a check from Hagins for $2,600 and paid this amount to Burke for work Burke had done in previous cases because Burke would not go forward with the Hagins report until respondent had paid him for his prior reports.
In addition, respondent's expense itemization included the amount of $11,852.75 for court reporting services. However, the invoices presented to Hagins by respondent to support that amount totaled only $1,707.50.
Respondent's itemization of expenses did not reflect Hagins's payment of the $6,000 retainer, her payment for the expert witnesses, or other small amounts Hagins paid to respondent. After
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|