Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Patterson

Citation: 2002-Ohio-2487

Docket Number: 20012227

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-06-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Patterson, 95 Ohio St.3d 502, 2002-Ohio-2487.] 
 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. PATTERSON. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Patterson, 95 Ohio St.3d 502, 2002-Ohio-
2487.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with credit for time 
served since March 30, 2001 — Conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice — Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law. 
(No. 2001-2227 — Submitted January 30, 2002 — Decided June 12, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-46. 
__________________ 
 
PER CURIAM. 
{¶1} 
In an agreement between relator, Columbus Bar Association, and 
respondent, Brent Paul Patterson of Cardiff by the Sea, California, Attorney 
Registration No. 0044103, respondent admits committing the misconduct alleged 
in the complaint filed by relator on March 30, 2001.  The parties also agree that 
this misconduct violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice) and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness 
to practice law). 
{¶2} 
According to count one, respondent fathered a child in 1991, and 
the child’s mother filed a paternity action against respondent in Kentucky.  Ohio 
obtained the case under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act 
(“URESA”), former R. C. Chapter 3115, 1971 Am.H.B. No. 504, 134 Ohio Laws, 
Part II, 1849.  Blood tests established respondent’s paternity, and the Ohio court 
ordered respondent to pay $720 per month to the mother as child support.  
Respondent secured a stay of the support order pending his appeal of the award, 
but the appellate court voided the stay in March 1997.  Thereafter, the mother, to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
whom respondent owed an arrearage of approximately $45,000, filed felony 
nonsupport charges against respondent in Kentucky. 
{¶3} 
Respondent was arrested on a Kentucky warrant arising out of 
these charges when he appeared at a federal courthouse in California on other 
criminal matters.  The Kentucky court deferred respondent’s criminal prosecution 
on condition that respondent pay a substantial portion of the arrearage and comply 
with the monthly payment schedule for two years. 
{¶4} 
In the Ohio URESA action, the court repeatedly sent notices to 
respondent informing him that he was in default of a substantial child-support 
obligation.  The most recent of these notices, issued on July 20, 1999, specified an 
arrearage of $45,244.27.  The court sent these notices to the addresses respondent 
had provided when he entered appearances in the case.  In any event, respondent 
has not satisfied this obligation. 
{¶5} 
Under count two, respondent pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor 
charges of failing to file federal income tax returns for 1993 and 1994.  The 
federal district court sentenced respondent to three years of federal probation. 
{¶6} 
Finally, in count three, respondent was charged in Muskingum 
County, Ohio, with possession of marijuana, driving while intoxicated, and 
another traffic charge.  Respondent failed to appear for the scheduled hearing in 
this case, and the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest.  When respondent 
appeared in federal court for sentencing in the tax matters, he was arrested on the 
warrant from Muskingum County. 
{¶7} 
Respondent ultimately pled guilty to driving while intoxicated, the 
remaining charges were dismissed, and the court sentenced respondent to ten days 
in jail and fined him $1,000. 
{¶8} 
As to mitigation, the parties agree that (1) respondent’s violations 
did not directly relate to the practice of law, (2) respondent’s violations did not 
January Term, 2002 
3 
adversely affect his clients or the judicial system, and (3) respondent suffered a 
separate punishment or sanction for each of these violations. 
{¶9} 
Relator and respondent agree that this court should suspend 
respondent from the practice of law for one year, with credit for time served since 
March 30, 2001, as punishment for his misconduct. 
{¶10} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court found that the agreement of relator and 
respondent conforms with the board’s regulations.  Thus, the panel recommended 
accepting the agreement, including the statement of facts and the violations.  The 
panel also recommended that this court suspend respondent from the practice of 
law for one year, with credit for time served since March 30, 2001.  The board 
adopted the panel’s recommendations and further recommended that we tax the 
costs to respondent. 
{¶11} We have reviewed the record, and we adopt the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the board.  Accordingly, we hereby suspend 
respondent from the practice of law for one year, with credit for time served since 
March 30, 2001.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., concurs separately. 
 
DOUGLAS and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J., concurring. 
{¶12} I concur in the sanction ordered by the majority with the exception 
that I would grant no credit for time served. 
__________________ 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶13} Because I believe that the sanctions imposed in this case are 
insufficient, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to adopt the 
conclusions and recommendations of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline. 
{¶14} The respondent in this case had previously been suspended from 
the practice of law for a period of six months.  See Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Patterson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 23, 711 N.E.2d 221.  This suspension was based 
in part on respondent’s failure to return an unearned retainer, in violation of DR 
2-110(A)(3), and for his failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation.  In 
fact, respondent remains under suspension in that matter due to his failure to file 
an affidavit of compliance showing that he made full restitution, including 
interest, of the unearned retainer. 
{¶15} In addition, respondent is in default of his substantial child-support 
obligation, which, as of July 1999, amounted to $45,244, resulting in a felony 
nonsupport charge in Kentucky.  Moreover, in other financial matters, respondent 
failed to file federal income tax returns for 1993 and 1994 and was sentenced to 
three years of federal probation for those offenses. 
{¶16} Finally, in March 2000, after an elaborate game of cat and mouse 
with the state of Ohio, respondent pled guilty in Muskingum County Court to 
operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.  Respondent had 
been arrested on June 18, 1995, for failure to stay within marked lanes in violation 
of R.C. 4511.33, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in 
violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1), and possession of marijuana in violation of R.C. 
2925.11.  After various filings to contest the charges, respondent left the state and 
failed to appear in court to answer to those charges.  Ultimately, he was arrested 
on a bench warrant for failure to appear in Muskingum County Court when he 
finally appeared in federal court for sentencing for failure to file tax returns. 
January Term, 2002 
5 
{¶17} I find it peculiar that the parties agreed as to mitigation that (1) 
respondent’s violations did not directly relate to the practice of law, (2) 
respondent’s violations did not adversely affect his clients or the judicial system, 
and (3) respondent suffered a separate punishment or sanction for each of these 
violations.  While respondent may have suffered separate punishments, I simply 
cannot agree that his conduct did not relate to the practice of law, nor can I agree 
that his conduct did not adversely affect the judicial system.  I would hold that our 
judicial system as well as the practice of law is adversely affected when an 
attorney willfully fails to fulfill his child support obligations, willfully fails to file 
tax returns, and willfully fails to appear to answer to criminal charges in court.  
Respondent has thumbed his nose at officials at all levels of Ohio government, as 
well as Kentucky, long enough. 
{¶18} For all of the reasons above, I would find that the sanction 
recommended by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and 
adopted by this court is insufficient, and I would remand the matter to the board 
for a hearing pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D).  I respectfully dissent. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Wolman, Genshaft, & Gellman and Susan B. Gellman; Jill M. Snitcher 
McQuain and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator. 
 
Brent Paul Patterson, pro se. 
__________________