On Tuesday, December 6, 2022, the Cincinnati Bar Association filed charges for attorney discipline against Dayton attorney David Edmund Stenson alleging misconduct.
The case is styled Cincinnati Bar Association v. David Edmund Stenson under case no. 2022-047.
The charges cited violations of Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(c), 1.5(b), and 3.3(a), which state:
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
A lawyer shall do all of the following . . . reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client. . .
A lawyer shall inform a client at the time of the client’s engagement of the lawyer or at any time subsequent to the engagement if the lawyer does not maintain professional liability insurance in the amounts of at least one hundred thousand dollars per occurrence and three hundred thousand dollars in the aggregate or if the lawyer’s professional liability insurance is terminated.
The nature and scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing.
A lawyer shall not knowingly do any of the following: make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal. . .
The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.
The following are as alleged and summarized from the Complaint:
On May 20, 2020, Grievant met with Stenson to seek assistance with the grievant’s deceased mother’s estate. Grievant paid $1,500 to Stenson without any fee agreement or any explanation from Respondent as to how he would charge for his work. During the representation, the grievant alleged that Stenson failed to keep her informed of the status of the administration of the estate. Grievant further alleged that Stenson failed to diligently represent grievant’s matter, which ultimately resulted in grievant’s obtaining a new counsel who then successfully filed the account and closed the Estate.
The Complaint states:
“Respondent opened the Estate of Darlene Grim (“the Estate”) in the Hamilton County Probate Court (“the Court”) on May 27, 2020.
On December 1, 2020, the Court served both Grievant and Respondent with notice that both the required inventory of the assets in the Estate (“the Inventory”) and a certificate confirming a fee agreement between Grievant and Respondent (“the Fee Certificate”) had not been filed with the Court and were overdue.
On March 4, 2020, the Court issued an order extending the time for filing the Account to the end of March 2021, and also issued a body attachment against Respondent for his failure to comply with prior court orders and make the necessary filings in the Estate, referenced herein, that are required by the Ohio statues relating to estate administration. The next day, the Court submitted this body attachment to the Sheriff of Montgomery County, where Respondent has his office and is believed to reside.”
The Complaint continues:
“On March 17, 2021, Respondent filed the Fee Certificate with the Court, allegedly verifying that he had a fee agreement with Respondent, despite the fact that Grievant denies having signed one and Respondent has failed to identify or locate a copy of one.
On March 23, 2021, Respondent filed the Inventory, which by that time was overdue.
On April 5, 2021, the Court issued a citation for both Grievant and Respondent to appear on the Account which was still past due.
The Complaint further alleges:
“At about this same time, in the Fall of 2021, Grievant received a telephone call from Respondent’s office advising her that she would have to attend a hearing before the Court since Respondent was unavailable to do so. Grievant attended such hearing, and, during this hearing, the Court advised Grievant of the fact that the Account was overdue and that she should consider obtaining new counsel. After Grievant appeared for this hearing, she attempted to contact Respondent and was unsuccessful.
On January 4, 2022, the Court granted a motion that Respondent filed to withdraw as counsel to the Estate. Grievant subsequently obtained a new counsel who successfully filed the Account and closed the Estate.”
The Complaint additionally notes:
“In March 2022, Grievant and her new counsel attempted to contact Respondent to inquire as to the $1,500.00 payment that Grievant had made to Respondent in May 2020. Respondent did not respond to such attempts and has never provided an invoice or other records concerning the disposition of such payment.
Respondent has not confirmed that he carried professional liability insurance during the time that he was representing Grievant or that he advised her that he was not carrying such insurance.”
By these acts, the Relator alleges that Stenson is chargeable with misconduct as an attorney at law, which has brought disrepute to the legal profession. The relator requests that Stenson be disciplined pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.
Mr. David Edmund Stenson practices in Dayton, Ohio where he maintains his law firm, David E. Stenson & Associates. He has been licensed in Ohio, license no. 0042671.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
