Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Brumbaugh

Citation: 2003-Ohio-2470

Docket Number: 20030418

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Brumbaugh, 99 Ohio St.3d 65, 2003-Ohio-2470.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BRUMBAUGH. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Brumbaugh, 99 Ohio St.3d 65, 2003-Ohio-
2470.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Failing to 
promptly return papers to which client is entitled after withdrawal — 
Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — Intentionally prejudicing or 
damaging client during course of professional relationship — Failing to 
maintain records of client’s funds in lawyer’s possession and to render 
accounts to client regarding those funds — Failing to promptly pay or 
deliver client funds upon request. 
(No. 2003-0418 — Submitted April 16, 2003 — Decided May 16, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-26. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In December 1992, we suspended respondent, Phillip Brumbaugh 
of Greenville, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0022652, from the practice of law 
in Ohio for six months for neglecting entrusted legal matters.  Darke Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Brumbaugh (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 151, 602 N.E.2d 606.  We stayed the 
suspension upon conditions.  Id. 
{¶2} 
In October 2000, we suspended respondent from the practice of 
law in Ohio for two years for neglecting entrusted legal matters, but we stayed the 
suspension upon conditions.  Darke Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brumbaugh (2000), 90 Ohio 
St.3d 248, 737 N.E.2d 27. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
On May 23, 2002, we found respondent in contempt for failing to 
comply with our October 2000 order, and we suspended him from the practice of 
law and ordered him to surrender his certificate of admission and attorney 
registration card and to file an affidavit of compliance.  Darke Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Brumbaugh, 95 Ohio St.3d 1467, 2002-Ohio-2424, 768 N.E.2d 659.  On October 
3, 2002, we found respondent in contempt for failing to comply with our May 
2002 order and suspended him from the practice of law in Ohio for two years for 
breaching the conditions of our October 2000 order.  Darke Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Brumbaugh, 96 Ohio St.3d 1530, 2002-Ohio-5303, 776 N.E.2d 109. 
{¶4} 
The disciplinary violations in this case involve the following facts.  
In 2000, a client hired respondent to represent him in a paternity and child-support 
matter.  They agreed that respondent would receive a contingent fee of 30 percent 
of the refunded child support awarded to the client upon establishing that he was 
not the father of the child.  Despite numerous attempts by the client to contact 
respondent over the following year, respondent did not respond.  Respondent did 
not file documents on his client’s behalf or otherwise complete his representation 
and did not return the client’s file. 
{¶5} 
In March 2001, a client retained respondent to represent her in a 
guardianship matter.  Respondent requested and received $160, which included a 
$150 filing fee.  At their initial meeting, the client and her daughter noticed 
respondent’s slurred speech and the strong odor of alcohol about his person.  The 
client subsequently made repeated unsuccessful attempts over a two-month period 
to talk to respondent concerning the status of her case.  When the client finally did 
talk to respondent, respondent misrepresented the status of the case.  The client 
requested that respondent return the $150 filing fee that she had given him.  
Respondent did not file anything on behalf of his client.  The client ultimately 
retained another attorney, who obtained the relief she sought within a week.  The 
client later received a refund of the filing fee she had given respondent. 
January Term, 2003 
3 
{¶6} 
In October 2000, a client retained respondent to seek guardianship 
of her orphaned grandchildren, to probate an estate, and possibly to institute a 
wrongful-death action.  Despite repeated assurances by respondent that he was 
preparing the appropriate documents and would file them, he never filed anything 
on his client’s behalf. 
{¶7} 
In 2001, the family of a decedent retained respondent to probate 
the estate.  In September 2001, a person agreed to purchase the decedent’s home 
for $75,000, and he delivered an earnest money check of $1,000 to respondent.  
The buyer later gave respondent a check for the remaining $74,000, but 
respondent did not inform either the family or the administrator of the estate of his 
receipt of the check.  Respondent placed these funds in his IOLTA account.  At 
the October 2001 closing, in accordance with documents prepared by respondent, 
the estate received a check for $31,770.22, and respondent kept the remaining 
$43,229.78 in his IOLTA account.  This remaining amount was to pay off the 
balance of the secured interest in the decedent’s home held by the United States 
Department of Agriculture/Rural Housing Service (“USDA/RHS”). 
{¶8} 
Despite receiving past-due notices and promising the decedent’s 
family and the administrator of her estate that he had paid or would pay the 
USDA/RHS interest, he retained the money in his IOLTA account from October 
9, 2001, to December 21, 2001.  After the administrator filed a grievance against 
respondent with a local bar association, respondent falsely represented to the 
association’s certified grievance committee that he had paid off the interest and 
that he had forwarded a check to USDA/RHS.  Respondent withdrew the money 
from his IOLTA account and delivered it to the administrator after the committee 
scheduled his deposition. 
{¶9} 
In April 2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with having violated multiple Disciplinary Rules.  
Respondent filed an answer admitting all of the allegations of the complaint.  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court upon testimony and the parties’ agreed 
stipulations.  The parties recommended an indefinite suspension from the practice 
of law in Ohio as the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct. 
{¶10} The panel found the facts as previously specified and concluded 
that by his conduct, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging 
in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 2-110(A)(2) 
(failing to promptly return papers to which client is entitled after withdrawal), 6-
101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (intentionally 
failing to carry out an employment contract), 7-101(A)(3) (intentionally 
prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of the professional 
relationship), 9-102(B)(3) (failing to maintain records of client funds in lawyer’s 
possession and to render accounts to client regarding those funds), and 9-
102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver client funds upon request). 
{¶11} The panel found that despite significant aggravating factors, the 
factors supporting mitigation were compelling.  Respondent has sought and is 
receiving treatment for alcoholism and depression.  For example, in the spring of 
2002, respondent received inpatient treatment for his alcohol abuse for 28 days, 
and, since his discharge, he has regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous 
meetings.  Respondent continues to receive medical treatment for his depression, 
which is in remission.  The panel further found that respondent’s misconduct did 
not irrevocably harm his clients, that he did not obtain financial gain from his 
misconduct, and that he is an active, respected member of the community who is 
sincere about overcoming his alcohol dependency and depression.  The panel 
recommended that given the mitigating factors and the parties’ agreed sanction, 
respondent should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. 
January Term, 2003 
5 
{¶12} The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel.  The 
board recommended that based on his history of substance abuse, respondent 
should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio, with his 
readmittance conditioned on proof of his successful treatment and recovery from 
alcoholism.  The board further recommended that the costs of the proceeding be 
taxed to respondent. 
{¶13} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
board.  An actual suspension from the practice of law is the general sanction for 
an attorney that engages in a course of conduct that violates DR 1-102(A)(4).  
Akron Bar Assn. v. Hoffer (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 97, 99, 712 N.E.2d 116. 
{¶14} Although respondent has been previously disciplined for 
comparable conduct, the board could properly credit various mitigating factors, 
including his lack of a dishonest or selfish motive, his substantial cooperation in 
the disciplinary process following the filing of relator’s complaint, his admirable 
general character for honesty and integrity, and his sincere desire to seek 
treatment for and overcome his alcoholism and depression.  See Section 10(B)(2) 
of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings 
Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. 
{¶15} Moreover, although respondent’s misconduct was egregious, it 
was, as relator describes, “dilatory in nature” and “related to his use of alcohol.”  
The parties agreed that there was “no evidence that respondent misappropriated 
any client funds, or that he enriched himself at client expense.” 
{¶16} Based on the foregoing, an indefinite suspension is an appropriate 
sanction.  See, e.g., Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brickley, 97 Ohio St.3d 285, 2002-
Ohio-6416, 779 N.E.2d 750 (misconduct including violations of DR 1-102[A][4], 
1-102[A][6], 6-101[A][3], 7-101[A][2], and 9-102[B][4] warranted indefinite 
suspension despite evidence of misappropriation of client funds when mitigating 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
evidence included treatment for the depression and alcohol dependence that 
contributed to the violations). 
{¶17} Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  Respondent is currently serving a two-year suspension from the 
practice of law pursuant to our October 3, 2002 entry.  96 Ohio St.3d 1530, 2002-
Ohio-5303, 776 N.E.2d 109.  We specified conditions for his reinstatement to 
practice law in Ohio in that entry.  Id.  Our decision in this case imposes a 
separate sanction, and under Gov.Bar R. V(10)(B), respondent must wait two 
years from the date of this order before seeking reinstatement.  See, e.g.,  
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Judge, 96 Ohio St.3d 467, 2002-Ohio-4741, 776 
N.E.2d 21, ¶ 6.  Accordingly, consistent with the board’s recommendation, we 
order that respondent may not file a petition for reinstatement for two years from 
the date of this order and that his readmittance be conditioned on proof of his 
successful treatment of and recovery from alcoholism and his satisfaction of all 
orders of the court, including those specified in our October 3, 2002 entry.  Costs 
are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kevin L. Williams, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Lopez, Kemmer, Severt & Pratt Co., L.P.A., and Jose M. Lopez, for 
respondent. 
__________________