Close this search box.

Ohio Lawyer Suspended From Practice Over Mishandling of Guardianship

Print Article

MARCH 21, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 10
Rebecca Susan Blair had practiced law in Cleveland, Ohio, since 1986. When the local probate court appointed her to take over as a successor guardian (of the estate — what we in Arizona would call a conservator) early in 2005, she had a good reputation and seemed to be responsible.

In most jurisdictions lawyers are required to maintain a separate bank account to hold client funds, usually only for short periods of time. Sometimes it does not make economic sense to set up a separate account for the client’s funds, and the interest earned for the client in a separate account would likely not even cover the costs of opening and monitoring the account. Those accounts are usually called “client trust” accounts; in some jurisdictions, any interest earned on such an account is paid to a charitable foundation set up by the state bar association. That is the case in Ohio, where Ms. Blair practiced, and in Arizona.

Client trust accounts are not a substitute for separate fiduciary accounts for money managed by a guardian or conservator who happens to be a lawyer. And client trust accounts have scrupulous management and accounting requirements — it is impermissible, for instance, to mix the lawyer’s own funds with the client trust account funds. It is also a violation of ethical rules to ever allow a client trust account to be overdrawn — or even to fall below the level necessary to protect each and every client deposit in the account. As just two examples, even a stop-payment fee, or the charges for new checks, must be paid out of the lawyer’s operating account and never out of the client trust account.

Ms. Blair seems to have started out fine with her ward’s funds. She took in $30,000, placing it temporarily in her client trust account. She had already earned fees from the estate, and she promptly wrote herself a check for those fees. Then she left the money in her client trust account for two months (mistake #1) until she began writing checks out of the account to herself (mistake #2) totaling $33,150, which left her client trust account overdrawn (mistake #3). Within eight months of her initial appointment she had used all of her ward’s money for herself.

It took the probate court two years to begin demanding an accounting from Ms. Blair. She kept putting the probate judge off, filing eight separate requests for one-month extensions of her reporting requirements rather than confessing to her misdeeds (mistake #4). Near the end of that cycle, one of her employees prepared a falsified document indicating that the ward’s share of her client trust account was about $5,000 less than it really was; the employee forged Ms. Blair’s signature, secured a notarization and filed it with the court. Ms. Blair was ultimately held responsible for failure to supervise her staff closely enough to prevent the forgery (mistake #5).

Ms. Blair continued to practice law, and by the end of that final year (three years after her initial appointment) she had accumulated over $20,000 of earned fees on other cases in her client trust account. She repaid her ward $16,972.83 plus an additional $2,000 to compensate the ward for the interest that might have been earned if the funds had been properly held in a separate account.

Not surprisingly, a complaint was filed alleging that Ms. Blair had violated her ethical duties as a lawyer. She acknowledged that she had, and agreed that sanctions should be imposed. She and the Disciplinary Counsel (responsible in Ohio for maintaining lawyer discipline cases) agreed to submit her case on stipulated facts and with an agreed-upon sanction.

How severe should Ms. Blair’s discipline be? The stipulation called for a one-year suspension from the practice of law, but with six months of that suspension “stayed.” That would mean that Ms. Blair would be unable to practice law at all for six months, and for another six months she would be monitored by the bar while practicing.

Ms. Blair acknowledged that she had been diagnosed as suffering from a major depressive disorder, and she also was alcohol-dependent. Her probationary period would require her to maintain her mental health and alcohol treatment programs, take continuing legal education classes on office management and avoid any further disciplinary actions.

When the stipulated suspension was submitted for formal approval, however, the disciplinary authorities ruled that Ms. Blair’s one-year suspension with a six-month stay was too mild. They insisted on a two-year suspension — though with an 18-month stay. The practical effect: Ms. Blair will be unable to practice law for the same six months, but her probationary period thereafter will last for a year and a half rather than just another six months. Disciplinary Counsel v. Blair, Ohio Supreme Court, February 24, 2011.

Ms. Blair’s legal troubles (and bar discipline) points out a related issue. Although her problems were known in 2007 and the formal disciplinary proceedings were begun in 2009, as of this writing (at least two years into the disciplinary process and a month after the formal order suspending her), Ms. Blair continues to appear in internet-based evaluations as actively practicing and strongly rated by her peers. She is shown as having an “AV” rating by Martindale-Hubbell, the oldest and best-known lawyer rating service. Interestingly, her client ratings are a much-lower 1.0 out of 5.0 (that may be the lowest possible rating), though without any explanation. cheerfully provides a link to Ms. Blair’s website, which (in turn) advises the reader “New Web Site Coming Very Soon!”

But on Avvo, another lawyer rating system, Ms. Blair already appears as having been “cited for professional misconduct.” Her rating, if she had one prior to the suspension, does not appear as of this writing. Instead a red icon flags it for “!Attention”. No link appears to her individual web address.

What is our point? That it can be very difficult to get complete, up-to-date and accurate information about lawyers. We suggest checking multiple online listings, looking at the lawyer’s online presence, checking state bar websites and asking friends and colleagues for their personal experiences.

Stay up to date

Subscribe to our Newsletter to get our takes on some of the situations families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities find themselves in. These posts help guide you in the decision making process and point out helpful tips and nuances to take advantage of. Enter your email below to have our entries sent directly to your inbox!

Robert B. Fleming


Robert Fleming is a Fellow of both the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. He has been certified as a Specialist in Estate and Trust Law by the State Bar of Arizona‘s Board of Legal Specialization, and he is also a Certified Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation. Robert has a long history of involvement in local, state and national organizations. He is most proud of his instrumental involvement in the Special Needs Alliance, the premier national organization for lawyers dealing with special needs trusts and planning.

Robert has two adult children, two young grandchildren and a wife of over fifty years. He is devoted to all of them. He is also very fond of Rosalind Franklin (his office companion corgi), and his homebound cat Muninn. He just likes people, their pets and their stories.

Elizabeth N.R. Friman


Elizabeth Noble Rollings Friman is a principal and licensed fiduciary at Fleming & Curti, PLC. Elizabeth enjoys estate planning and helping families navigate trust and probate administrations. She is passionate about the fiduciary work that she performs as a trustee, personal representative, guardian, and conservator. Elizabeth works with CPAs, financial professionals, case managers, and medical providers to tailor solutions to complex family challenges. Elizabeth is often called upon to serve as a neutral party so that families can avoid protracted legal conflict. Elizabeth relies on the expertise of her team at Fleming & Curti, and as the Firm approaches its third decade, she is proud of the culture of care and consideration that the Firm embodies. Finding workable solutions to sensitive and complex family challenges is something that Elizabeth and the Fleming & Curti team do well.

Amy F. Matheson


Amy Farrell Matheson has worked as an attorney at Fleming & Curti since 2006. A member of the Southern Arizona Estate Planning Council, she is primarily responsible for estate planning and probate matters.

Amy graduated from Wellesley College with a double major in political science and English. She is an honors graduate of Suffolk University Law School and has been admitted to practice in Arizona, Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia.

Prior to joining Fleming & Curti, Amy worked for American Public Television in Boston, and with the international trade group at White & Case, LLP, in Washington, D.C.

Amy’s husband, Tom, is an astronomer at NOIRLab and the Head of Time Domain Services, whose main project is ANTARES. Sadly, this does not involve actual time travel. Amy’s twin daughters are high school students; Finn, her Irish Red and White Setter, remains a puppy at heart.

Famous people's wills

Matthew M. Mansour


Matthew is a law clerk who recently earned his law degree from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. His undergraduate degree is in psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Matthew has had a passion for advocacy in the Tucson community since his time as a law student representative in the Workers’ Rights Clinic. He also has worked in both the Pima County Attorney’s Office and the Pima County Public Defender’s Office. He enjoys playing basketball, caring for his cat, and listening to audiobooks narrated by the authors.