Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Brown - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

Cincinnati Bar Association v. Brown.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Brown (1997), _____Ohio St.3d_____.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Handling a legal
matter one is not competent to handle -- Failing to withdraw from
employment when mental condition renders it unreasonably difficult
to carry out employment effectively -- Engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation -- Engaging in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice -- Failing to seek
lawful objectives of client -- Failing to carry out contract of
employment -- Prejudicing or damaging client during course of
professional relationship -- Neglecting an entrusted legal matter --
Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law
-- Knowingly making false statement of law or fact in representation
of client -- Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation.

(No. 96-2372 -- Submitted February 19, 1997 -- Decided May 14,
1997.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-31.

On April 10, 1995, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a five-
count complaint charging respondent, Stanley Brown of Covington,
Kentucky, Attorney Registration No. 0041489, with violating a number of
Disciplinary Rules. On August 3, 1995, relator filed an amended complaint,
charging violation of other Disciplinary Rules in four additional counts. On
March 21, 1996, relator filed a motion for default judgment. Respondent
received the complaint and the amended complaint, but he failed to answer
or otherwise plead within time.

On September 27, 1995, the Supreme Court of Kentucky disbarred
respondent from the practice of law in Kentucky. Thereafter respondent
failed to respond to our order to show cause why he should not be
suspended in Ohio under the reciprocal provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F).
On May 3, 1996, we issued an order suspending respondent from the
practice of law in Ohio until such time as he is reinstated to the practice of
law in Kentucky.

On the basis of relator's motion for default judgment, a panel of the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme
Court ("board") made the following findings and conclusions. In December

2

1991, Dale Price retained respondent to pursue a malicious prosecution and
defamation claim on his behalf, which respondent did in December 1993.
Price was awarded a judgment of $1 because respondent did not provide
evidence of damages. Price notified relator that respondent had filed an
affidavit in a Kentucky action that prior to July 7, 1994, he was suffering
from manic depression and was not capable of performing as an attorney.
The panel concluded that respondent's actions in undertaking the
representation of Price violated DR 6-101(A)(1) (handling a legal matter he
knows he was not competent to handle), 2-110(B)(3) (failing to withdraw
from employment where his mental condition renders it unreasonably
difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively), 1-102(A)(4)
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation) by concealing his disability from Price, and 1-102(A)(5)
(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

In April 1993, James Issac hired respondent to obtain a reversal of a
juvenile court contempt finding, reduce Isaac's support payments, and
establish specific visitation rights for him. Respondent pursued and
obtained only the first of these objectives. The panel concluded that by this

3

failure to act respondent had violated DR 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek the
lawful objectives of the client), (2) (failing to carry out a contract of
employment), and (3) (prejudicing or damaging the client during the course
of the professional relationship).

After respondent filed a bankruptcy petition on July 5, 1994 for
Robin Bryant and her former husband, Stephen, respondent failed to appear
at the Section 341 meeting of creditors in their case, failed to respond to
telephone calls and requests from the United States trustee for information
about the Bryants' case, failed to appear at a hearing before the bankruptcy
court to show cause why he should not return the fees paid to him by the
Bryants, and failed to appear before the bankruptcy court on an order to
show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his conduct.
Ultimately the bankruptcy judge suspended respondent from practicing in
the bankruptcy court. The panel concluded that by this conduct respondent
had violated DR 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter
entrusted to him), and 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3).

In the summer of 1994, respondent appeared in common pleas court
on behalf of Steven Kippenberg and filed a motion to dismiss an action

4

against him. Respondent, however, failed to appear at the hearing on the
motion or at any of the three continued hearings. He also failed to appear at
the hearing on whether he should be found to be in contempt. As a result,
the common pleas court fined respondent $250 and sentenced him to a
suspended sentence of one day in jail. The panel found that respondent's
conduct in this instance violated DR 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(3), 7-
101(A)(1), (2), and (3), 1-102(A)(4) and (5), 1-102(A)(6)(engaging in
conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law), and 7-
102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of law or fact in the
representation of a client).

Respondent failed to respond to five letters from relator with respect
to these grievances and the panel concluded that such conduct violated
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)(failure to cooperate in an investigation).

Respondent undertook to defend Melinda Mather on a driving under
the influence charge, but he failed to inform her of the final court date.
When Mather failed to appear, a capias warrant for her arrest was issued.
The panel concluded that respondent's conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(1), 6-
101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3).

5

Also, after Mather retained respondent in March 1994 to represent her
in an employment discharge case, respondent failed to return her phone calls
and failed to return her file. The panel concluded that respondent's conduct
in this matter violated DR 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), (2), and
(3), and 9-102(B)(4) (failure to promptly deliver as requested by a client
property in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to
receive).

Patricia Ditomaso retained respondent on a contingent-fee basis in
April 1994 to represent her in a personal injury lawsuit and respondent
failed to file the suit before the running of the statute of limitations. The
panel concluded that respondent's conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(1), 2-
110(B)(3), 6-101(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4) and 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3).

Respondent also failed to cooperate with relator's counsel, Kevin
Swick, in the investigation of the grievance filed by Mather. The panel
concluded that this failure violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).

The only evidence which the panel received in mitigation was an
affidavit from a Kentucky physician to the effect that respondent suffered
from severe depression and was not capable of performing as an attorney

6

during April, May, and June 1994, and a July 7, 1994 affidavit of
respondent filed in a Kentucky case to support his withdrawal as counsel in
that matter, averring that he was suffering from manic depression, that he
had moved his office to Covington, Kentucky, and that his secretary had
quit.

The panel recommended that respondent be disbarred. The board
adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the recommendation of
the panel.
_____________________________________

James L. O'Connell and Kevin L. Swick, for relator.
_____________________________________

Per Curiam. We concur with the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred
from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK
and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

7