Say Uncle

There is no disciplinary system that is as efficient and transparent (and busy) as Ohio.

North Carolina remains a solid second but has been overtaken by Ohio’s cutting-edge transparency web tools. 

By my count, the Ohio Supreme Court decided eight disciplinary cases today.

One involved the attorney’s uncle, who was charged attorney’s fees for non-legal work

In 2015, Zelvy’s uncle, Alvin Stein, requested that Zelvy serve as his agent and update his will. Stein also signed a durable power of attorney naming Zelvy as his attorney-in-fact. According to Zelvy, Stein did not trust his own children and therefore requested Zelvy’s assistance in handling his affairs. Although Stein initially instructed Zelvy to charge his usual fee for the representation, they later agreed that Zelvy would charge $250 an hour as his attorney fee, which was a discount from Zelvy’s standard hourly rate of $350. Zelvy understood that he would perform legal and nonlegal services for his uncle, but he and Stein did not discuss a separate hourly rate for nonlegal tasks.

 Stein thereafter gave Zelvy cash that he had previously kept in a safe deposit box. Zelvy failed to inventory the money or to deposit it into his client trust account. Instead, he placed the money in a new safe deposit box that he opened at a different bank. Throughout the representation, Stein periodically gave Zelvy additional funds—either for safekeeping or to make payments on Stein’s behalf— and Zelvy kept the money in the new safe deposit box until distributing as Stein directed. Zelvy also paid his own attorney fees out of those funds. Zelvy, however, failed to keep any records of the cash received from Stein or the amounts disbursed.

Between June 2015 and March 2016, Zelvy received $16,249 for his services on behalf of his uncle. Although Zelvy recorded the work he completed and provided bills to his uncle, he failed to differentiate between legal and nonlegal tasks. For example, Zelvy billed his $250 hourly legal rate for law-related tasks, such as reviewing contracts for the sale of Stein’s home, and for nonlegal work that he performed in his capacity as Stein’s caretaker or attorney-in-fact, such as supervising his healthcare, taking him shopping, or running errands with him.

After Stein died in March 2016, Zelvy delivered to Stein’s two children the property that he had in his possession, including $22,000 in cash. Stein’s daughter later filed a grievance against Zelvy, alleging that he had charged an excessive fee and failed to properly account for the funds that her father had entrusted to him.

Misconduct

the board concluded that Zelvy should have charged Stein only $10,000 for his 40 hours of legal work at the rate of $250 an hour and that Zelvy must return to Stein’s estate the remaining $6,249 he collected as legal fees for nonlegal work. Zelvy has waived any objections to the board’s findings and recommendation.

The court ordered a stayed suspension of six months. (Mike Frisch)