Darke Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brumbaugh - 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

[Cite as Darke Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brumbaugh, 90 Ohio St.3d 248., 2000-Ohio-59]

DARKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BRUMBAUGH.
[Cite as Darke Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brumbaugh (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 248.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Two-year suspension with entire suspension
stayed on conditions -- Neglect of an entrusted legal matter.
(No. 00-759 -- Submitted July 6, 2000 -- Decided October 25, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-53.

On January 20, 2000, relator, Darke County Bar Association, filed an
amended complaint charging respondent, Philip J. Brumbaugh of Greenville,
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0022652, in two separate counts with violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility. After respondent answered, the matter
was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board").

The panel found that in March 1998, Tina Marie McCreery employed
respondent to effect a dissolution of her marriage and establish parental rights
with respect to her children. McCreery paid respondent $510 for his fee and court
costs. Respondent prepared the necessary documents, which McCreery and her
husband signed in April 1998. He then advised the McCreerys that a hearing
would be held in their case on a certain Friday in June 1998. When the
McCreerys appeared on the appointed date, court personnel informed them that
there was no record of the filing of their petition. The parties stipulated that
although McCreery contacted respondent's office several times between April
1998 and January 1999 to find out the date of the hearing on her petition for
dissolution, she was never told that the documents had not yet been filed. In
January 1999, McCreery filed a grievance about respondent with relator. In
February 1999, respondent filed the dissolution papers and returned $350 to

McCreery, that being the legal fee portion of the money McCreery had paid to
him. The parties stipulated that the court held the final hearing on the McCreery
dissolution matter in March 1999.

The panel also found that after obtaining a divorce in late 1997, Deborah
L. Edwards retained respondent to file a motion for contempt against her former
spouse for failure to abide by the terms of the separation agreement. Between
March 1998 and May 1999, Edwards had numerous contacts with respondent,
who led her to believe that the motion for contempt had been filed. Respondent
even advised Edwards that a hearing on the motion had been scheduled in June
1998 and then that the hearing had been postponed. Respondent finally filed the
appropriate papers in March 1999 and the court held a hearing on the matter in
June 1999. As a result of the hearing, respondent was to prepare a journal entry
within thirty days. Respondent did not prepare the entry.

The panel concluded that respondent's conduct in the McCreery matter
and in the Edwards matter constituted two separate violations of DR 6-101(A)(3)
(a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter). In mitigation, the panel
noted respondent's considerable contributions to the community and the fact that
he had been diagnosed with major depression, for which he has sought treatment.
The panel then considered the fact that respondent had previously been
disciplined by this court. Darke Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brumbaugh (1992), 65 Ohio
St.3d 151, 602 N.E.2d 606. It recommended that respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for two years, with the suspension stayed on condition that
respondent continue his treatment for major depression and that the attending
physician report every three months to the relator, indicating respondent's
progress and need, if any, for further treatment. The panel further specified that
the stay will be revoked if, during the two-year suspension period, any complaint
is filed against respondent that passes probable cause review by relator.

2

The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
panel.
__________________

Jeffrey L. Amick and Eric H. Brand, for relator.

William R. Zimmerman, for respondent.
__________________
Per
Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for
two years, with the entire two-year suspension stayed, provided that respondent
continue his treatment for major depression and that the attending physician
report every three months to the relator, indicating respondent's progress and
need, if any, for further treatment. Furthermore, the suspension is stayed on the
condition that during the two-year suspension period, no complaint is filed against
respondent that passes probable cause review by relator. Costs of these
proceedings are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

3