The Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended a Dayton attorney for two years, with one year stayed, based on her actions to recover $550 in electronic fund transfers she mistakenly sent to a man with the same name as her husband.

The Supreme Court suspended Christine Baker and placed several conditions on her reinstatement to the practice of law, including completing six hours of continuing legal education (CLE) focused on legal ethics and professionalism.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court found she violated four rules governing the conduct of Ohio attorneys when she pursued Zachary Reynolds of Downers Grove, Illinois, for the immediate return of two Zelle transfers she mistakenly made to him, and for filing a lawsuit against him after he filed a grievance against her.

The Dayton Bar Association submitted a complaint against Baker with the Board of Professional Conduct. The board found she committed the rule violations and recommended that the Court suspend Baker for one year, with six months stayed.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the per curiam opinion. Eighth District Court of Appeals Judge Eileen T. Gallagher, sitting for Justice Jennifer Brunner, also joined the opinion.

Justice Joseph T. Deters concurred with the decision, but stated he would impose the one-year suspension with six months stayed recommended by the board.

Separate Opinion Suggests Disciplinary Proceeding Change
In a separate opinion, Justice R. Patrick DeWine concurred with the majority opinion, but wrote to address another issue raised in the case. The Court found that, under its 1993 Hecht v. Levin decision, any person who makes allegations against a lawyer in an attorney disciplinary proceeding is protected by absolute immunity from a civil lawsuit.

Justice DeWine wrote that state law, R.C. 2305.28(D), grants a lower level of “qualified” immunity for people making statements to professional standards review committees, and the Court should adopt that standard for the attorney discipline process.

He wrote that with absolute privilege under Hecht, “someone can file a false claim of attorney misconduct, alleging the most atrocious misbehavior, and be completely free of any consequences, even when the person making the allegation knows with certainty that the claim is false.” He stated the Court should no longer rely on Hecht and use the qualified privilege that offers protection for statements made “without malice and in reasonable belief that the information is warranted by the facts known” to the person providing information.

Attorney Pursues Return of Misdirected Transfers
In September 2023, Baker used Zelle to make two transfers, $250 and $300, from her law practice operating account. She intended to send the funds to another bank account she held jointly with her husband, Zachary Reynolds. She inadvertently transferred the funds to a Charles Schwab account belonging to a different Zachary Reynolds, an Illinois resident.

When Reynolds of Illinois noticed the unexpected deposits into his account, he contacted Charles Schwab. He testified at Baker’s disciplinary hearing that he did not immediately file a formal fraud complaint because he wanted to make sure that his wife was not expecting the transfers.

Baker discovered the error the day after she made the second transfer. She testified she spent about eight hours that day identifying Reynolds of Illinois as the recipient of the transfer and locating his contact information. The next day, she sent multiple communications to Reynolds by email, text message, and LinkedIn. She also contacted Reynolds’ wife and several of his work colleagues.

Baker’s earliest communication with Reynolds, sent at 8:04 a.m., was an email that stated: “On 19 Sep 2023 and 20 Sep 2023, you received $550 to your Zelle-linked Charles Schwab account. These payments were in error and your retention of this money is unlawful. Efforts are being made to recover the funding from the financial institutions involved. If you do not return the ill-gotten funds within 24 hours, collection, garnishment, and all available recovery methods will commence, including notifying your employer of your conduct. This communication is an attempt to collect a debt.”

Baker identified herself as “Christine Baker, Esq.,” and included her Ohio attorney registration number, business address, and other contact information. She sent the same message to him later in the morning by text and left a voicemail message on his cellphone.

Money Recipient Believed He Was Scam Target
When he received Baker’s communications, Reynolds believed he was the target of a scam, noting Zelle cautions users to be wary of unknown people contacting them to request money. He responded to Baker by text message, stating, “Considering this is your error, I find your threats offensive and they are noted. You can follow the appropriate channels with Charles Schwab to recoup YOUR mistake.”

She responded to his message, indicating she would sue him. She sent a photo of her husband to Reynolds, identifying him as Zach Reynolds but not indicating that he was her husband. She did not tell Reynolds that the money she transferred was her own, but claimed it belonged to the man in the photo. Baker sent several messages during the day to Reynolds’ wife and his coworkers about the incident.

The day he received Baker’s initial communications, Reynolds opened a formal complaint with Charles Schwab. The firm advised him not to touch the funds and to allow the fraud department to handle the investigation. He testified he was told not to independently return the funds to the sender. After explaining the amount of communication he received from Baker, the bank told him if he felt he was being harassed, he should contact his local police department.

Reynolds visited the Downers Grove Police Department, where an officer reviewed the messages and stated he thought it was part of a scam. The officer advised him to ignore the messages and follow the bank’s instructions.

On Sept. 26, the bank confirmed with Reynolds that the transfers had been made in error and had been removed from his account. The next day, Reynolds filed a grievance with the Dayton Bar Association against Baker. On Oct. 3, two weeks after she initiated the first Zelle transfer, the $550 she transferred was back in her account.

Lawyer Sued Funds Recipient
After learning of the grievance and meeting with a bar association investigator, Baker filed a civil lawsuit in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court against Reynolds, alleging that he defamed her and converted her funds.

Reynolds hired an Illinois attorney to assist him, and the lawyer spoke to Baker by telephone and asked her to dismiss the case. She indicated she would settle the case for $2,500. The parties did not settle, and Baker amended her complaint to add more allegations. Reynolds hired an Ohio law firm to assist him, and the case was transferred to federal court. Baker then dismissed the federal case.

In September 2024, the bar association notified Baker that it intended to file a formal disciplinary complaint against her. Shortly after, she refiled her lawsuit against Reynolds in common pleas court. Reynolds testified he paid $21,665 in attorney fees to defend against the initial lawsuit.

Based on the actions, the Board of Professional Conduct found Baker pursued the lawsuit despite acknowledging that her own error caused the $550 to be transferred to Reynolds, and the funds were promptly returned solely as a result of Reynolds’ actions. The board determined she filed her lawsuit in retaliation for Reynolds filing his grievance.

The board found she violated four rules, including engaging in conduct involving dishonest, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law.

Baker responded to the board’s findings, raising nine objections, including that her communications with Reynolds were private speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She argued she was acting on her own behalf and was not representing a client or providing legal services. Asserting that she had engaged in personal expression, she claimed that her communications were not subject to regulation by the Supreme Court.

The Court rejected her objections. It also rejected an objection by the bar association, which argued Baker’s misconduct warranted an indefinite suspension.

The Court agreed with the board’s findings, but indicated a greater sanction was appropriate. The Court suspended Baker for two years, with one year stayed on the conditions that she does not commit further misconduct and she pays the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. To be reinstated, she must also submit proof of completing the additional six hours of CLE, pay any monetary sanction that may be ordered in the civil lawsuit against Reynolds, submit to an evaluation by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, and comply with the program’s recommendations.

2025-0791. Dayton Bar Assn. v. Baker, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2673.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.