Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. Dann
Citations: 101 Ohio St. 3d 266; 804 N.E.2d 428Docket: No. 2003-1514
Court: Ohio Supreme Court; March 2, 2004; Ohio; State Supreme Court
Marc E. Dann, an attorney from Youngstown, Ohio, faced disciplinary charges from the Mahoning County Bar Association for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The case was addressed by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, which reviewed a consent-to-discipline agreement. In 2002, Dann represented a client under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that required the client to pay his ex-wife $3,000 from his pension in monthly installments. The client paid Dann $250 to explore the possibility of a lump-sum payment instead. However, Dann mishandled the situation by filing an inappropriate motion to terminate spousal support, despite no such order existing. Confusion escalated as Dann attempted to arrange for the ex-wife to sign documents to terminate the QDRO, but his staff failed to provide the necessary paperwork. He misled both the client and the ex-wife about the status of the agreement. Ultimately, the court dismissed the incorrectly filed motion, leading to the client discharging Dann. He later refunded $2,940 to the client, deducting $60 as a filing fee. The Board found that Dann violated DR 6-101(A)(2) by inadequately preparing for the legal matter. Mitigating factors included his lack of prior disciplinary issues, his refunding of fees, and his previously good reputation. The panel accepted the consent-to-discipline agreement, recommending a public reprimand, which the board and the court confirmed. Consequently, Dann received a public reprimand for his misconduct, with costs assessed to him.