Case Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown-Daniels

Citation: 2013-Ohio-955

Docket Number: 2012-1708

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown-Daniels, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-955.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-955 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. BROWN-DANIELS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown-Daniels,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-955.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation—
Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—One-year 
suspension, partially stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2012-1708—Submitted January 23, 2013—Decided March 19, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-035. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Barbara Charmagne Brown-Daniels of Cleveland 
Heights, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0055655, was admitted to the practice 
of law in Ohio in 1991.  Relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, 
charged Brown-Daniels with professional misconduct in a five-count complaint 
filed on April 12, 2010. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Although Brown-Daniels was served with the complaint by 
certified mail on April 16, 2010, she did not timely file an answer.  Relator moved 
for default on May 16, 2011, and on June 8, 2011, Brown-Daniels moved the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline for leave to file an answer 
instanter. 
{¶ 3} At the hearing, the panel granted relator’s motion to dismiss 
Counts Two, Three, and Four of its complaint, as well as certain alleged 
violations in Counts One and Five.  Having heard Brown-Daniels’s testimony and 
reviewed the documentary evidence, the panel found that Brown-Daniels had 
committed the remaining charged misconduct and recommended that Brown-
Daniels be suspended from the practice of law for one year, with six months 
stayed on conditions.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and 
misconduct and the proposed sanction.  Neither party has objected to the board’s 
findings or recommendation. 
{¶ 4} Based on the evidence before us, we adopt the board’s findings of 
fact and misconduct, and we suspend Brown-Daniels from the practice of law in 
Ohio for one year, with the final six months of that suspension stayed on the 
conditions recommended by the board. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} Brown-Daniels had been admitted to the bar for approximately 
nine years before she began practice as a solo practitioner.  She served as board 
counsel for an organization known as Associated Real Estate Counseling, Inc. that 
provided consumers with credit counseling, mediation, and mortgage assistance.  
When that organization ceased operations in 2007, Brown-Daniels agreed to 
represent a number of its clients in bankruptcy proceedings. 
{¶ 6} On August 23, 2007, Brown-Daniels appeared before Judge Pat E. 
Morgenstern-Clarren in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern 
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, to show cause why she had not complied with 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
the court’s order to return the $650 fee she had received in connection with the 
case In re Green, No. 07-13689.  She advised the court that she had kept the fee 
because she had negotiated with the debtors to apply it to their new bankruptcy 
filing.  The court, however, noted that it could not confirm Brown-Daniels’s 
explanation, because she had failed to file the required disclosure of compensation 
in the debtors’ new case.  Therefore, the court found that Brown-Daniels had 
failed to comply with its previous order and revoked her electronic-filing 
privileges. 
{¶ 7} After the court suspended her electronic-filing privileges, Brown-
Daniels arranged for attorney Donald R. Murphy, an established attorney with no 
bankruptcy experience, to assist her with her bankruptcy practice.  The terms of 
their arrangement were not reduced to writing.  Brown-Daniels’s testimony and a 
sworn statement that Murphy gave to relator demonstrate that the two had 
differing views on the scope of their relationship and their roles—issues that were 
exacerbated by poor communication.  Murphy stated that he was not aware of 
several of his obligations until the bankruptcy court issued orders to show cause 
and that he consequently sent Brown-Daniels a letter terminating their 
relationship on October 23, 2007. 
{¶ 8} Brown-Daniels and Murphy appeared at a November 29, 2007 
hearing before Judge Morgenstern-Clarren to address show-cause orders issued 
against them in three separate bankruptcy proceedings.  At that hearing, they gave 
statements regarding their relationship and the actions they had taken in the cases 
at issue.  After the hearing, Judge Morgenstern-Clarren issued an order on 
December 3, 2007, in which she found that Brown-Daniels had breached the 
standards that apply to attorneys practicing in the bankruptcy court by (1) filing 
documents under Murphy’s name when she knew she could not file them herself 
because her electronic-filing privileges had been revoked, (2) filing two 
documents bearing Murphy’s electronic signature without his knowledge or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
participation, and (3) permitting her nonlawyer staff to complete documents and 
forms and file them without any attorney supervision.  Based on these findings, 
the court barred Brown-Daniels from filing any new bankruptcy petitions in that 
court or participating as counsel in cases filed by other attorneys until she 
satisfied certain educational requirements enumerated in the order and obtained 
the court’s written permission to resume filing. 
{¶ 9} Additionally, from August 2007 through June 2008, Brown-
Daniels was the subject of multiple disgorgement orders in cases before Judge 
Morgenstern-Clarren and two other judges in the United States Bankruptcy Court 
for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.  In at least three of those 
cases, the court found her in contempt and ordered her to pay sanctions of $25 per 
day until she complied with the disgorgement orders.  Brown-Daniels testified 
that she had not appealed or otherwise challenged those orders, that she did not 
have the financial ability to pay the disgorgement orders or the sanctions imposed, 
and that she was awaiting the outcome of this disciplinary proceeding to address 
those orders. 
{¶ 10} With respect to the first count of relator’s complaint, the board 
found that Brown-Daniels had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to 
provide competent representation to a client) by virtue of the numerous 
disgorgement orders issued against her by the bankruptcy court and her 
association with Murphy—who had no bankruptcy experience—to handle her 
client’s bankruptcy matters following the revocation of her electronic-filing 
privileges.  Based on Murphy’s sworn statement and the transcript—and noting 
relator’s failure to call Murphy as a witness at the hearing—the board was not 
persuaded that Brown-Daniels’s use of Murphy’s electronic password and 
signature was always unauthorized.  It did find, however, that by using Murphy’s 
password and signature after he terminated their association, Brown-Daniels 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
intended to avoid the order that restricted her own electronic-filing privileges and 
misrepresented the identity of the responsible attorney to the bankruptcy court. 
{¶ 11} The board found that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation) and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).  And with respect to 
Count Five, the board found that by failing to comply with a number of 
bankruptcy court orders to disgorge her attorney fees in multiple cases and failing 
to pay (or petition the court to stay the imposition of) daily sanctions imposed in 
several of those cases, Brown-Daniels had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.   
{¶ 13} The board found Brown-Daniels’s pattern of misconduct involving 
multiple offenses, her refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct, 
and her failure to make restitution as required by the bankruptcy court’s 
disgorgement orders to be aggravating factors.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), 
(d), (g), and (i).  The board expressed its concern that Brown-Daniels blamed her 
staff for using Murphy’s electronic password and signature and suggested that her 
problems in the bankruptcy court were the result of some animus by the trustee in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
another bankruptcy matter, portraying herself as a helpless victim rather than a 
person accountable for her own circumstances. 
{¶ 14} As mitigating factors, the board found that Brown-Daniels does not 
have a prior disciplinary record and that the bankruptcy court had imposed 
sanctions against her for the misconduct at issue in this case.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (f).  Although Brown-Daniels testified that she suffered 
from anxiety and depression for which she had sought medical treatment, she 
presented no evidence or testimony from a medical or mental-health professional 
to substantiate her claims.  Therefore, the board did not consider her alleged 
conditions to be mitigating.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶ 15} Relator recommended that Brown-Daniels be suspended from the 
practice of law for one year with no more than six months of that suspension 
stayed on conditions.  The board adopted relator’s recommendation, citing 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Nance, 124 Ohio St.3d 57, 2009-Ohio-5957, 918 
N.E.2d 1000 (imposing a one-year suspension with six months stayed on 
conditions for an attorney who repeatedly failed to comply with bankruptcy 
orders to disgorge fees and pay assessed fines), and Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Gerchak, 130 Ohio St.3d 143, 2011-Ohio-5075, 956 N.E.2d 292 (imposing a one-
year fully stayed suspension for an attorney who used another attorney’s 
electronic-filing account to file a client’s bankruptcy petition because his own 
electronic-filing privileges had been suspended).  The board recommended that 
Brown-Daniels be suspended from the practice of law for one year with six 
months stayed on the conditions that she complete six hours of continuing legal 
education (“CLE”) in law-office management, in addition to the general 
requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, remit or resolve all fines and costs assessed by the 
bankruptcy court, and submit evidence of compliance with the continuing-
education requirements imposed by Judge Morgenstern-Clarren’s December 2007 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
order barring Brown-Daniels from practicing law in the United States Bankruptcy 
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. 
{¶ 16} The board distinguished this case from Gerchak, noting that in that 
case there were multiple mitigating factors to support a fully stayed suspension.  
Among those factors were the absence of a prior disciplinary record, full and free 
disclosure and cooperative attitude during the disciplinary proceedings, the 
absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, evidence of Gerchak’s good character 
and reputation in the legal community, and the sanctions imposed by the 
bankruptcy court.  Gerchak at ¶ 11; BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(b)(2)(a), (b), (d), (e), and 
(f). 
{¶ 17} We recognize that the facts of Nance are not entirely congruent 
with this case.  Nance’s misconduct consisted of his mishandling of several 
bankruptcy matters, his failure to comply with disgorgement orders issued in 
those proceedings, and his failure to appear at the resultant contempt hearings.  
Nance, 124 Ohio St.3d 57, 2009-Ohio-5957, 918 N.E.2d 1000, at ¶ 5-9.  In 
addition to Brown-Daniels’s failure to satisfy a number of disgorgement orders 
issued against her in her clients’ bankruptcy proceedings, she also used another 
attorney’s electronic-filing privileges without authorization to file at least two 
documents in the bankruptcy court while her own electronic-filing privileges were 
suspended.  But Nance also had a prior six-month stayed suspension for misuse of 
his client trust account that weighed in favor of a stronger sanction.  Id. at ¶ 12, 
citing Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nance, 119 Ohio St.3d 55, 2008-Ohio-3333, 
891 N.E.2d 746. 
{¶ 18} Having reviewed the record, the aggravating and mitigating factors 
present in this case, and the sanction imposed in Nance, we adopt the board’s 
findings of fact and misconduct and are persuaded that the board’s 
recommendation of a one-year suspension with six months conditionally stayed is 
the appropriate sanction for Brown-Daniels’s misconduct. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 19} Accordingly, we suspend Barbara Charmagne Brown-Daniels from 
the practice of law for one year but stay the second six months of that suspension 
on the conditions that she (1) commit no further misconduct, (2) complete six 
hours of CLE in law-office management within 90 days of the date of this order 
that shall not apply to the general CLE requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and (3) 
remit or resolve all fines and costs assessed by the bankruptcy court within 90 
days of the date of this order.  If Brown-Daniels fails to comply with the condition 
of the stay, the stay will be lifted and she will serve the full one-year suspension.  
Before seeking reinstatement to the practice of law in Ohio, Brown-Daniels shall 
be required to submit evidence that she has complied with the continuing-
education requirements imposed by Judge Morgenstern-Clarren’s December 3, 
2007 order barring her from practicing law in the United States Bankruptcy Court 
for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.  Costs are taxed to Brown-
Daniels. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
David O. Simon and Suzana K. Koch, for relator. 
Gerald R. Walton, for respondent. 
______________________