disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Brown, Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v.
130 Ohio St.3d 147, 2011-Ohio-5198. Decided 10/13/2011.
Case Summaries- 30
Respondent neglected client matters, failed to communicate with his clients, failed to respond to requests
for information, failed to properly keep and deliver client property, engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty and fraud, and did not cooperate in the disciplinary investigation. Respondent was previously
suspended for failure to register in 2009. Respondent did not respond to the complaint. A master
commissioner was appointed, and made findings of fact and law, and recommended disbarment. In Count
One, respondent accepted money to petition for an increase in his client‘s child support. He failed to file
court paperwork for his client and lied about the fact that he had not filed it. As a result, the client could
not make childcare payments and her child was removed from the program. Respondent did not respond
to phone calls or certified letters from his client. He later admitted to relator that he owed his client
money and promised to pay it back; respondent never did. This conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3
(reasonable diligence), 1.4(a)(3) (keep client reasonably informed), 1.4(a)(4) (reply to requests for
information), 1.15(d) (promptly deliver client funds or property), and 8.4(c) (dishonest, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation). In Count Two, respondent accepted money to file a bankruptcy, even though he was
not admitted to the bankruptcy court, had no bankruptcy experience, and did not have filing privileges
there. Over the course of a year, he continuously lied to his client about the case, telling her that he had
filed the petition, he had spoken to the judge about the petition, and he would provide her with
information relating to her case. This conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (competent representation), 1.2,
1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(d), 8.4(c). In Count Three, respondent collected garnishment checks for a
company, but never paid them any of the money he collected. Respondent also admitted that he did not
have an IOLTA account. This conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(a) (requiring client
and attorney funds be separate), 1.15(d), and 8.4(c). The Court agreed with the above findings. In
aggravation, respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, failed to make
restitution, and harmed vulnerable clients. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (h), (i). There were no
factors in mitigation; although the master commissioner found no prior disciplinary record, respondent
was on suspension for failing to register; however, the master commissioner gave no weight to this in
mitigation and thus the error was harmless. The board recommended that respondent be indefinitely
suspended and that he pay restitution to his three clients. The Court adopted the recommendation, adding
that the indefinite suspension should run consecutively to respondent‘s attorney registration suspension.
Thus, the two year waiting period would begin only after respondent registered.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 8.4(c)
Aggravation: (b), (c), (d), (h), (i)
Mitigation: NONE
Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension