## Facts

- Georgianna I. Parisi, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1982, represented Sylvia Demming, a 93-year-old nursing-home resident who claimed she was being held against her will.
- After observing Demming’s confusion and disorientation, Parisi filed an application in probate court to be appointed Demming’s guardian, alleging Demming was incompetent based on Alzheimer’s-related memory loss and a physician’s dementia evaluation.
- About seven weeks later, Parisi had Demming execute a durable power of attorney naming Parisi as attorney-in-fact.
- Parisi then withdrew her own guardianship application and filed a new guardianship application on behalf of Demming’s niece, while continuing to represent Demming.
- While the guardianship matter remained pending, Parisi used the power of attorney to pay herself more than $18,000 from Demming’s funds for legal services without prior probate-court approval.
- The probate court removed Parisi as counsel for both Demming and the niece; Parisi returned the funds to Demming’s account.
- The Dayton Bar Association filed disciplinary charges alleging conflict of interest, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and a clearly excessive fee.

## Issues

1. Whether representing both the proposed ward and the proposed guardian in the same guardianship proceeding constituted a conflict of interest under Ohio disciplinary rules.
2. Whether self-payment of legal fees from the client’s funds during a pending guardianship, without probate-court approval, constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
3. Whether the more than $18,000 fee was clearly excessive given the client’s age, cognitive condition, and the circumstances under which the fee was taken.
4. Whether the appropriate sanction was an actual suspension or a fully stayed suspension in light of aggravating and mitigating factors.
5. Whether the applicable disciplinary provisions were unconstitutional as applied (including vagueness challenges).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio overruled objections from both Parisi and the Dayton Bar Association.
- The court adopted the board’s findings that Parisi committed professional misconduct by:
  - engaging in a conflict of interest by representing Demming and the niece in the same guardianship matter,
  - engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by paying herself from Demming’s funds without court approval while the guardianship was pending, and
  - charging a clearly excessive fee.
- The court rejected the bar association’s argument that the fee conduct amounted to misappropriation requiring an actual suspension.
- The court rejected Parisi’s constitutional challenges to the disciplinary rules.
- The court imposed a six-month suspension, fully stayed on the condition of no further misconduct.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer has a conflict of interest when the lawyer represents both a proposed ward and a proposed guardian in the same guardianship proceeding, because the ward’s interest in autonomy may diverge from the guardian applicant’s interest in obtaining authority over the ward and estate.
- In guardianship matters, probate courts exercise supervisory authority; a lawyer’s self-payment of fees from a client’s funds, without required court approval while proceedings are pending, may constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- A fee may be “clearly excessive” when its amount and method of collection are improper in context, including where an elderly client with diminished capacity grants a power of attorney and the lawyer uses it to pay herself substantial fees.
- Restitution and cooperation mitigate sanction but do not negate misconduct.
- Ethical rules governing conflicts, fee reasonableness, and prejudicial conduct are enforceable when applied to identifiable attorney conduct in a guardianship context.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court disciplined an attorney for conflicted guardianship representation and self-authorized fee collection from an impaired elderly client, holding that the conduct warranted a six-month suspension fully stayed based on restitution and other mitigating factors.


Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Parisi, 131 Ohio St. 3d 345, 965 N.E.2d 268 (Ohio 2012)