Case Title: Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brickley

Citation: 2002-Ohio-6416

Docket Number: 20021087

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-12-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brickley, 97 Ohio St.3d 285, 2002-Ohio-6416.] 
 
 
RICHLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. BRICKLEY. 
[Cite as Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brickley, 97 Ohio St.3d 285, 2002-Ohio-
6416.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension with reinstatement, if 
any, subject to conditions — Neglecting or mishandling cases of fifteen 
different clients — Failing to respond to requests for information during 
investigation of misconduct. 
(No. 2002-1087 — Submitted August 27, 2002 — Decided December 4, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-91. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
We are asked in this case to determine the sanction for an attorney 
who neglected or otherwise mishandled the cases of 15 different clients and who 
failed to respond to requests for information during the investigation of this 
misconduct.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found 
that respondent, Barry F. Brickley of Mansfield, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0011435, committed these acts and thereby violated several Disciplinary Rules 
and Gov.Bar R. V.  The board recommended that respondent be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law with specific conditions to be met before 
reinstatement will be considered.  We agree that respondent’s misconduct and the 
mitigating circumstances surrounding it, particularly his depression and 
alcoholism, justify an indefinite suspension. 
{¶2} 
In an amended complaint filed on March 15, 2002, relators, 
Disciplinary Counsel and the Richland County Bar Association, charged 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
respondent with numerous violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility 
and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).1  Relators and respondent subsequently entered into 
stipulations concerning the alleged misconduct and mitigating circumstances 
underlying the complaint.  A panel of the board heard the cause and made the 
following findings. 
I.  Misconduct 
A 
{¶3} 
In 1999, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an 
entrusted legal matter) and 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract for 
professional services) by accepting $750 from a client to prepare and file 
documents for the appointment of a guardian for the client’s sister.  Respondent 
prepared the documents and his client signed them, but respondent never filed 
them. 
B 
{¶4} 
Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by failing to file a Qualified 
Domestic Relations Order for a client after her divorce was finalized in December 
1999.  The client stood to receive one-half of the value of her ex-husband’s 
401(k) fund from the divorce decree.  The client repeatedly asked respondent to 
complete the work and he promised that he would, but he never did. 
C 
{¶5} 
In 1999, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1) (failing 
to seek client’s lawful objectives), and 7-101(A)(2).  He failed to respond to a 
motion for summary judgment while defending a client in a civil suit, and then he 
did not file a motion for relief from the resulting $25,965.70 judgment against his 
client as he had promised.  And in a separate civil case against the same client, 
                                                 
1.  On April 23, 2002, we imposed an interim remedial suspension of respondent’s license to 
practice law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5a)(B) because the pattern of respondent’s alleged 
misconduct posed a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Brickley (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 1430, 766 N.E.2d 997. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
respondent failed to answer the complaint, and a default judgment was entered 
against the client. 
D 
{¶6} 
Respondent also violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to 
cooperate in the Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation of grievances concerning 
the three clients mentioned in subsections A, B, and C, as well as two other 
clients.  From December 1999 through April 2001, respondent failed to answer 
numerous certified letters of inquiry in these matters for which he or his agent had 
signed the return receipt. 
E 
{¶7} 
In 1996, respondent violated DR 2-106 (charging an illegal or 
clearly excessive fee), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to 
promptly return client’s funds) after accepting $520 from a client to establish a 
guardianship for the client’s aunt.  Respondent never filed the guardianship papers 
and failed to return the client’s telephone calls about the matter.  At one point, 
respondent promised a bar association investigator that he would remedy the 
situation, but he failed to return the money paid to him as a retainer. 
F 
{¶8} 
In 1998, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by promising to 
bring a lawsuit on a couple’s behalf concerning a physical assault.  The clients 
paid respondent a $400 retainer and $126 for a filing fee, but he did not file the 
action.  In December 1999, respondent returned the couple’s money, but during 
the interim, the statute of limitations on the clients’ assault claim expired. 
G 
{¶9} 
Respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 6-101(A)(3) by 
promising to prepare and file a shared-parenting agreement for a client in March 
1999.  After the mother of the client’s child missed several appointments to sign 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
the agreement, respondent agreed to file an action on the client’s behalf to obtain 
custody or be awarded visitation rights.  In September or October 1999, 
respondent told his client that the necessary papers had been filed and that he was 
just waiting for them to be returned.  But in November 1999, the client learned 
that respondent had not filed the papers and discharged him. 
H 
{¶10} Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(1) by 
promising to prepare and file a client’s 1998 income tax return.  Respondent 
obtained an extension until August 1999 to file the return but did not return his 
client’s calls or meet with her to finish the return.  In October 1999, the client 
filed for bankruptcy and in December 1999, the client’s bankruptcy trustee asked 
respondent for the  client’s tax return or her records.  Respondent failed to provide 
them.  Respondent later had a bookkeeping service prepare the 1998 return, and 
he so advised his client in March 2000, after she had filed a grievance against 
him. 
{¶11} Respondent also agreed to file a motion to expunge a previous 
criminal conviction for this client.  He never filed the motion, and the client 
retained the services of another attorney, who ultimately obtained the 
expungement. 
I 
{¶12} In April 2000, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-
101(A)(2) after promising to complete a change of custody agreement for a client 
whose ex-wife had already agreed to the new arrangement.  Respondent assured 
the client that the process would take only a few weeks and that he would prepare 
the agreed judgment entry.  Respondent never filed the papers necessary to 
change custody of the client’s child. 
J 
January Term, 2002 
5 
{¶13} Respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 7-101(A)(2) and (3) (intentionally 
causing client damage or prejudice) after he agreed to represent a client in several 
pending criminal matters, including two traffic offenses and a probation violation 
case.  In March 2000, the client’s husband paid respondent $3,100 with the 
understanding that all the money would go to court costs, fines, and fees for the 
reinstatement of his wife’s driver’s license.  Respondent did not place these funds 
in a client trust account. 
{¶14} In May 2000, respondent paid the client’s fines and court costs in 
full, a total of $614.  In November of that year, he sent a $1,359 check toward his 
client’s $2,415 license reinstatement fee.  Also in November, respondent took 
$1,754 in fees from the client’s funds without authority from his client.  He 
eventually returned $750 of his fee, but the check he wrote for the client’s license 
reinstatement fee was returned for insufficient funds.  Respondent later paid the 
license reinstatement fee.  During the investigation of this misconduct, respondent 
tried to get his client’s husband to sign a letter that respondent had prepared to 
send to the Richland Bar Association explaining respondent’s use of the funds, 
but the husband refused. 
K 
{¶15} Respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to cooperate in 
the Richland County Bar Association’s investigation of his misconduct.  During 
September and October 2000, respondent failed to answer several requests for 
information concerning the grievance of the client described in subsection I 
herein.  During December 2000 and January 2001, he also failed to keep several 
meetings with relator to discuss the grievance of the client described in subsection 
J herein. 
L 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶16} Respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice law) and 6-101(A)(3) after 
agreeing in April 2001 to represent a client in a divorce proceeding.  By July 6, 
2001, the client had paid respondent $625, and respondent had assured him that 
the divorce would be completed by December of that year.  When the client later 
discovered that a hearing had not been scheduled for December 2001, respondent 
assured him that the divorce would be completed in January 2002.  Respondent 
had not filed the complaint for divorce at the time he made this representation.  In 
fact, respondent did not initiate the client’s divorce proceedings until February 
2002. 
M 
{¶17} Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 9-102(B)(4) during 2001 
and 2002 after promising to represent a client in a criminal proceeding, a 
contempt proceeding against her husband, and a motion to modify child support.  
The client paid respondent $350 to appear on her behalf in the criminal case and 
$150 to handle the contempt and support cases.  Respondent did appear in court 
but did nothing in the other two matters.  However, he withdrew the client’s $500 
from his client trust account.  He has since promised to repay $150 but has not. 
N 
{¶18} In 2001, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) after agreeing in 
June to work pro bono for a client who wanted to arrange for her husband to adopt 
her children.  The client paid $156 for filing fees, and respondent represented that 
he would have the adoption completed in six weeks.  He also advised her on two 
separate occasions that a hearing had been scheduled even though he had not yet 
filed anything in court.  In October 2001, the client learned from the court that 
respondent had still not filed the adoption documents, so she took her records and 
filing fee back from respondent and filed the case herself. 
O 
January Term, 2002 
7 
{¶19} Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) during 2001 after he agreed 
to represent a client who wanted a divorce so that he could marry his girlfriend in 
June of that year.  The client’s girlfriend paid respondent $750.  In March 2001, 
respondent represented that the client had a court date in June even though he had 
not yet filed the case.  Respondent finally filed a complaint for divorce on June 
11, 2001. 
P 
{¶20} Respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 6-101(A)(3) after he 
agreed in July 2001 to represent a client pro bono in a personal injury matter and 
to contact an insurance carrier concerning the matter.  Respondent told his client 
that he was in the process of settlement negotiations when, in fact, he was not.  He 
also falsely represented that the carrier had twice attempted to deliver settlement 
checks to his office.  The client later learned that respondent had told these lies 
just to get the client “off his back.” 
Q 
{¶21} Finally, respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to 
answer Disciplinary Counsel’s requests for information about grievances filed by 
the clients described in subsections N, O, and P, as well as two other clients. 
II.  Recommendation 
{¶22} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel 
considered the factors stipulated as mitigating, which were corroborated by the 
forthright testimony of respondent, a professional acquaintance and friend of 
respondent, and respondent’s treating psychologist.  The panel learned that 
respondent had been a competent practitioner prior to the events at issue but was 
subsequently devastated by the decline of his marriage and eventual divorce.  His 
despondency led to alcoholism, three convictions for driving while under the 
influence of alcohol, and, in January 2000, hospitalization. The panel determined 
that respondent’s misconduct over the preceding years had stemmed from his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
personal misfortunes and the condition diagnosed by his psychologist — 
depression/anxiety adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features and alcohol 
dependence.  The panel also determined that respondent had been treated for this 
condition and is now in recovery. 
{¶23} Taking into account (1) the above-mentioned factors, (2) that 
respondent’s misconduct was similar to the misconduct in Toledo Bar Assn. v. 
Godbey (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 416, 763 N.E.2d 1156, and Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. 
Kieft (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 429, 763 N.E.2d 1167, and (3) that relators stipulated 
to a sanction of indefinite suspension, the panel recommended that respondent be 
suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.  The panel also recommended 
that respondent’s reinstatement be conditioned on his documented reimbursement 
of $750 to the client described in subsection A herein, $520 to the client described 
in subsection E herein, and $150 to the client described in subsection M herein, in 
addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10).  The panel further 
recommended that respondent document his completion of 12 hours of accredited 
continuing legal education courses in office management and that he enter into 
and satisfactorily complete a Lawyer’s Support System Recovery Contract under 
the supervision of the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, Inc.  Finally, the panel 
recommended that, if reinstated, respondent should serve a two-year probation 
period monitored by an attorney selected by the Richland County Bar 
Association. 
{¶24} The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and 
recommendation, and we agree with its decision.  Disbarment is ordinarily the 
sanction when an attorney’s misconduct permeates his practice in the way that 
respondent’s misconduct did in this case.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Glatki (2000), 
88 Ohio St.3d 381, 726 N.E.2d 993.  However, even when disbarment is 
otherwise appropriate, we have tempered our disposition if sufficient mitigating 
factors exist and the board recommends it.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Harris, 96 
January Term, 2002 
9 
Ohio St.3d 138, 2002-Ohio-2988, 772 N.E.2d 621, at ¶ 6.  We consider this to be 
such a case. 
{¶25} Accordingly, respondent is indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio, and his reinstatement, if any, will be subject to the 
recommended conditions.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
David L. Remy; Brown, Bemiller, Murray & McIntyre, L.L.P., and J. 
Jeffrey Heck, for relator Richland County Bar Association. 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna M. Anelli, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 
 
Barry F. Brickley, pro se. 
__________________