Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Trainor

Citation: 2011-Ohio-2645

Docket Number: 20101894

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-06-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Trainor, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-2645.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-2645 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSN. v. TRAINOR. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Trainor, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-
2645.] 
Attorneys at law — Repeated misconduct — Partially stayed license suspension. 
(No. 2010-1894 — Submitted February 15, 2011 — Decided June 7, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-023. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Robert N. Trainor of Covington, Kentucky, Attorney 
Registration No. 0012089, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978.  
He is also admitted to the practice of law in Kentucky.  On February 8, 2010, 
relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint charging respondent with 
professional misconduct for failing to notify a client at the time of the client’s 
engagement that he did not carry malpractice insurance and for failing to 
promptly return funds that the client was entitled to receive. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 2} Respondent has been sanctioned twice by this court for violations 
of the Code of Professional Conduct.  In July 2003, we imposed a conditionally 
stayed six-month suspension for failing to properly account for and preserve the 
identity of his client's funds in violation of DR 9-102(A) (requiring a lawyer to 
preserve the identity of client funds) and (B) (requiring a lawyer to maintain 
complete records of and appropriately account for client funds).  Cincinnati Bar 
Assn. v. Trainor, 99 Ohio St.3d 318, 2003-Ohio-3634, 791 N.E.2d 972, ¶ 6.  And 
in August 2006, we publicly reprimanded respondent for failing to properly notify 
his clients that he did not carry malpractice insurance.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. 
Trainor, 110 Ohio St.3d 141, 2006-Ohio-3825, 851 N.E.2d 505, ¶ 9.  During the 
pendency of the current proceeding, we also imposed a 30-day reciprocal stayed 
suspension after respondent was sanctioned by the Supreme Court of Kentucky 
for missing a statute-of-limitations deadline and failing to maintain adequate 
professional-liability insurance.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Trainor, 126 Ohio St.3d 
1249, 2010-Ohio-5102, 935 N.E.2d 422; Trainor v. Kentucky Bar Assn. 
(Ky.2010), 311 S.W.3d 719, 722. 
{¶ 3} The parties submitted stipulations of fact and misconduct, and 
respondent testified at the disciplinary hearing.  In light of respondent’s prior 
disciplinary violations, two of which involve respondent’s failure to maintain 
professional-liability insurance or his failure to inform his client’s of his 
uninsured status, the board recommends that we suspend respondent for 24 
months, with 18 months stayed on conditions.  We adopt the board’s findings of 
fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The stipulated facts and testimony demonstrate that in October 
2005, a woman retained respondent to represent her in a civil action against her 
homeowner’s insurer.  Respondent did not carry professional-liability insurance 
then and failed to advise the client of that fact.  The following month, he sent the 
January Term, 2011 
3 
client a letter disclosing that he did not carry professional-liability insurance and 
requesting that she sign an acknowledgement, but she never did. 
{¶ 5} Respondent tried the client’s case and obtained a favorable result.  
In April 2009, the month after respondent had distributed the proceeds of the 
action less his attorney fees, the client discovered that the clerk of courts had 
issued a check to respondent refunding her $225 filing fee.  Respondent did not 
respond to the client’s calls requesting the return of those funds.  She testified, 
however, that she eventually spoke with respondent, who advised her that he 
would check into the matter.  And when the client called again, respondent 
advised her that the funds were due to him for additional work he had performed 
in the case.  In July, after the client filed a grievance with relator, respondent 
returned the $225 to her. 
{¶ 6} The parties stipulated that respondent’s conduct violates 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client, in a writing signed by 
the client, if the lawyer does not maintain professional-liability insurance), and 
1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the 
client is entitled to receive).  The board, however, observed that respondent’s 
conduct relating to his lack of malpractice insurance preceded the February 1, 
2007 effective date of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.  Therefore, the 
board found that respondent’s conduct in that regard violated DR 1-104(A) of the 
Code of Professional Responsibility, which likewise requires a lawyer to disclose 
to the client, in a writing signed by the client, that the lawyer lacks professional-
liability insurance.  We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} 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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 8} As aggravating factors, the board found that this is the third time in 
seven years that respondent has faced disciplinary action, that he possessed a 
selfish and dishonest motive, and that he has engaged in a pattern of misconduct 
involving multiple offenses for failing to maintain professional-liability insurance 
or to inform his clients of his uninsured status and for his handling of client funds.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d).  The board also found that 
respondent’s current method of informing clients of his insurance status – telling 
them verbally at the initial interview, later sending written waivers for his clients 
to sign, and continuing to represent the clients even if they do not sign and return 
the waiver – does not comply with Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) and is therefore an 
aggravating factor.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1). 
{¶ 9} As mitigating factors, the board found that respondent has made 
restitution, albeit untimely, has been cooperative through these disciplinary 
proceedings, has acknowledged the wrongful nature of his conduct, and has 
otherwise made full disclosure to relator and the board.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(c) and (d). 
{¶ 10} We have imposed public reprimands for similar misconduct.  See, 
e.g.  Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Matejkovic, 121 Ohio St.3d 266, 2009-Ohio-776, 
903 N.E.2d 633 (imposing a public reprimand for an attorney’s failure to deposit 
unearned funds into a client trust account and failure to advise clients that he did 
not carry malpractice insurance); Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Jackson, 120 Ohio 
St.3d 173, 2008-Ohio-5378, 897 N.E.2d 151 (imposing a public reprimand for an 
attorney’s failure to account to a client for his time, fees, and expenses and failure 
January Term, 2011 
5 
to apprise that client that he did not maintain malpractice insurance).  Based upon 
respondent’s history of similar disciplinary violations, however, the board 
recommends that we suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for 24 
months, with 18 months stayed on the condition that he complete 18 months of 
probation and be monitored by an attorney appointed by relator in accordance 
with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(B).  We adopt the board’s recommended sanction. 
{¶ 11} Accordingly, Robert N. Trainor is suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for 24 months, with the last 18 months stayed on the conditions that 
he complete 18 months of probation and be monitored by an attorney appointed 
by relator in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(B), and that he commit no further 
misconduct.  The appointed monitor shall ensure that respondent either maintains 
professional-liability insurance in an amount that conforms with the Ohio Rules 
of Professional Conduct or informs his clients, in a writing signed by the client, 
that he does not maintain such insurance, and that he complies with the 
requirements of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 regarding the safekeeping of funds and 
property.  If respondent fails to comply with these conditions, the stay will be 
lifted, and he will serve the full 24-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Paul M. Laufman, for relator. 
Robert N. Trainor, pro se. 
__________________