On Tuesday, July 17, 2012, the Supreme Court of Ohio launched an expanded news program – Court News Ohio – that features stories about the Ohio judicial system. This archived page on the Supreme Court’s website only displays case summaries that occurred before that date. Cases that were summarized on July 17 and thereafter can be found at www.courtnewsohio.gov.

Upcoming Cases

Cleveland Attorney Suspended

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."

2011-0464.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Summers, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1144.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 10-037.  William Lawrence Summers, Attorney Registration No. 0013007, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months.
O'Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.
O'Donnell, J., dissents and would impose a six-month stayed suspension.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2012/2012-Ohio-1144.pdf

Video clip View oral argument video of this case.

(March 22, 2012) The Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended the law license of Cleveland attorney William L. Summers for six months for professional misconduct in his dealings with a criminal defendant from whom Summers demanded a “non-refundable” $15,000 fee advance, which Summers later refused to return despite withdrawing from the case without interviewing any witnesses, reviewing any discovery materials or negotiating a plea on behalf of the client.

In its 6-1 per curiam opinion, the court also ordered Summers to refund all of the client’s $15,000 fee.

The court adopted findings by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline that Williams’ conduct violated the state disciplinary rules that require attorneys to promptly refund unearned fees after withdrawing from representation, and prohibit an attorney from charging an illegal or clearly excessive fee; charging a “flat fee” without simultaneously advising the client he or she may be entitled to a refund if the a lawyer does not complete representation; and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.

The court overruled Summers objections to the disciplinary board’s recommendation of an actual suspension from practice. It cited the aggravating factors that “Summers acted with a dishonest and selfish motive, cooperated only grudgingly in the disciplinary process with an air of righteous indignation, was evasive and lied during his testimony at the panel hearing, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, harmed vulnerable clients, and failed to make restitution.”

The court’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor  and Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Robert R. Cupp and Yvette McGee Brown.

Justice Terrence O’Donnell dissented, noting that Summers had no prior disciplinary violations and  submitted letters from more than 50 judges and attorneys attesting to his contributions to the legal profession, pro bono service, and reputation for honesty, good character and hard work on behalf of clients.

Justice O’Donnell wrote: “I offer no excuses for Summers’s conduct, which arose out of a fee dispute, but in sanctioning that conduct, I would accord greater weight to Summers’s long and distinguished career. ... Based upon these attestations and the facts in this case, I conclude that Summers’s conduct is an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished 42-year legal career.  In my view, an actual suspension from the practice of law is unnecessary to protect the public from future harm, but rather is excessive and punitive in light of the mitigating factors in this case. Therefore, I would impose a six-month suspension, all stayed, on the conditions that Summers commit no further misconduct and submit to fee arbitration to determine the amount of refund, if any, owed to the Bell family.”

Jonathan E. Coughlan, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Michael L. Close, 614.221.5216, for William L. Summers.