On December 29, 2022, the Disciplinary Counsel filed Disciplinary charges against Novelty attorney Mary Lee Pilla, Esq. before the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Ohio. The case is entitled “Disciplinary Counsel v. Mary Lee Pilla Esq.” with case# 2022-052.
The charges cited Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(2), 1.7(b), and 8.4(h) which state:
A lawyer’s acceptance or continuation of representation of a client creates a conflict of interest if there is a substantial risk that the lawyer’s ability to consider, recommend, or carry out an appropriate course of action for that client will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person or by the lawyer’s own personal interests.
A lawyer shall not accept or continue the representation of a client if a conflict of interest would be created pursuant to [Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)] unless all of the following apply : (1) the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing; (3) the representation is not precluded by Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(¢).
A lawyer shall not engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law]. The basis for this charge is the respondent’s receipt of assets in the form of cash from the Ritter Trust and the TOD title to the Subaru Legacy.
The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.
The respondent was designated by one of her clients as the residual beneficiary and successor trustee of a trust fund. However, according to the complainant, the conduct is in violation of the Conflict of Interest since the respondent also represents the client in matters that affect her future finances in the said trust.
The filing states:
“After becoming the sole residual beneficiary on March 27, 2018, the respondent continued to represent James in matters that affected her future financial interest in the Ritter Trust. Respondent never obtained James’s written informed consent to the conflicts of interest relating to the gift of the residue and remainder of the Ritter Trust and her continued legal representation of James.”
The filing continues:
“On December 11, 2018, the respondent sent a letter to the Ritter children attaching a copy of James’s Will and the Trust documents. The Trust beneficiaries were redacted, as per the handwritten clause written by the respondent on the November 2018 Ritter Trust amendment. Therefore, none of the children were aware that the respondent was the sole residual beneficiary. In May 2019, the respondent made distributions under the terms of the Ritter Trust to the Trust’s designated beneficiaries. After making those distributions, the respondent distributed $238,671.19 from the Ritter Trust to herself as the sole residual beneficiary. Respondent left $49,141.69 in the Ritter Trust to cover costs associated with the South Carolina litigation; however, as the sole residual beneficiary, those funds have remained in the respondent’s possession and the respondent could withdraw them at any time. The total of these two disbursements is $287,812.88.”
The Relator requests that the respondent be found in violation of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and be sanctioned accordingly.
As of today, Ms. Pilla is listed on the website of the law firm as a practicing attorney. Her info can be found on Linkedin. She attended Cleveland Marshall College Of Law, graduating in 1981. Pilla practices in Novelty, Ohio. with license #22299.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
