Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Groner

Citation: 2012-Ohio-222

Docket Number: 2011-0866

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-01-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Groner, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-222.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-222 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. GRONER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. Groner, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-222.] 
Attorneys at law—Multiple disciplinary violations alleged, but respondent’s 
objections sustained in part—Six-month stayed suspension. 
(No. 2011-0866—Submitted September 7, 2011—Decided January 25, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-041. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Betty Groner, Attorney Registration No. 0030130, 
was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1985.  In June 2010, relator, Akron 
Bar Association, filed a complaint charging Groner with violations of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct for filing a pleading that contained misrepresentations and 
false accusations about an individual who had applied to be administratrix in a 
probate estate. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} The parties submitted stipulations of fact and mitigation, and a 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline conducted a 
hearing and made additional findings.  The panel concluded that Groner had 
violated the Prof.Cond.R. 3.1 (prohibiting a lawyer from asserting an issue unless 
there is a basis in law or fact for doing so), 3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
knowingly making a false statement of law or fact to a tribunal) and (3) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from offering evidence that the lawyer knows to be false 
and requiring a lawyer to take reasonable measures to remedy the situation when 
the lawyer discovers that such evidence is false), 4.1 (prohibiting a lawyer from 
making a false statement of law or fact to a nonclient), and 8.4(c), (d), and (h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), as charged.  
The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommended sanction that Groner be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio 
for 12 months, with six months of the suspension stayed. 
{¶ 3} Groner filed objections in which she argued that she did not 
knowingly make false statements to the court; she claims that she had made the 
statements in good faith and had withdrawn them when she suspected that they 
were incorrect.  She also argued that while she made a mistake, she did not intend 
to deceive, defraud, or misrepresent. 
{¶ 4} For the reasons stated below, we sustain Groner’s objections in 
part.  There is insufficient evidence that Groner violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), (d), 
and (h), and we dismiss those charges.  Consequently, we find that the more 
appropriate sanction is to suspend Groner from the practice of law in Ohio for six 
months, with the entire period stayed upon the condition that she commit no 
further disciplinary violations. 
 
 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
Misconduct 
Findings of Panel and Board 
{¶ 5} Groner was retained by Zachary Hopson, a Texas resident, to 
oppose the application of his sister, Brenda Joyce Fowler, to serve as fiduciary of 
their deceased mother’s estate.  Groner entered a notice of appearance in the 
matter pending in the Probate Court of Summit County, and she filed a motion to 
recognize Hopson as the named executor in the will and to allow David Pierce, a 
family friend and resident of Summit County, to serve as cofiduciary. 
{¶ 6} The court issued a notice of a hearing for September 8, 2009.  
When Groner arrived at court that day, she was told there was no oral hearing; 
instead, she was advised that September 8 was the deadline to submit written 
objections to the appointment of Fowler as administrator of the estate.  She 
returned to her office to prepare objections for filing that day. 
{¶ 7} While preparing the objections, Groner requested information on 
Fowler from an online service that provides background reports for a fee, and she 
also searched a government website that provides—also for a fee—case and 
docket information from federal courts.  Groner obtained a 16-page report from 
Intelius that disclosed that a Brenda Joyce Fowler of New Philadelphia, Ohio, had 
filed for bankruptcy and had a felony record.  The government website confirmed 
the bankruptcy.  Groner admitted that she was panicked that day and did not 
spend sufficient time reviewing the record, but she testified that, at the time, she 
believed that the allegations in the multipage report pertained to her client’s sister, 
and she did not verify the information. 
{¶ 8} Using the information she had obtained, Groner next contacted a 
bonding agency to inquire whether a convicted felon with a bankruptcy record 
could obtain a probate bond.  The agency’s representative, Frank Duffy, testified 
that he told Groner that such an applicant would not be approved.  Groner asked 
for the rejection in writing.  Instead, using the information that Groner had 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
provided, Duffy indicated on a preapplication form that the applicant would be 
declined and faxed it to Groner. 
{¶ 9} Groner prepared and filed written objections in probate court, 
alleging that Brenda Joyce Fowler would be prohibited from serving as the 
fiduciary because her personal bankruptcy and felony record precluded her 
obtaining a bond.  In support of the allegations, Groner attached the 
preapplication bond form as Exhibit A. 
{¶ 10} When Fowler received a copy of the objections from her attorney, 
she discovered that the pleading contained false information and accusations 
about her.  The information in the reports that Groner had obtained referred to 
persons who were not the Brenda Joyce Fowler in this case.  The Intelius report 
referenced 19 different individuals named Brenda J. Fowler or something similar 
and described persons of different ages, races, locations, and sex.  The report 
disclosed criminal records from states other than Ohio, including Texas, Florida 
and Alaska. 
{¶ 11} Groner testified that within a few days of filing the objections, 
after conversations with opposing counsel and her client, she began to suspect that 
the information she had submitted about Fowler was not correct.  Groner 
subsequently filed a motion for mediation in which she amended the objections to 
remove most of the allegations made about Fowler. 
{¶ 12} The panel concluded, and the board agreed, that there was clear 
and convincing evidence that Groner had no basis in fact or law for the false 
assertions and misleading arguments that she had made in a pleading, in violation 
of Prof.Cond.R. 3.1 and 3.3(a)(1) and (3). The panel also found that that she had 
filed a pleading containing false statements of material fact that became a public 
record and that she did not correct these statements, in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
4.1.  The panel also concluded, and the board agreed, that there was clear and 
convincing evidence that Groner’s knowing misrepresentations of fact to a court, 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
her disregard for the truth, and her procurement and use of misleading evidence 
were a matter of fundamental dishonesty and misrepresentation in violation of 
Prof.Cond.R.  8.4(c), (d), and (h). 
Groner’s Objections 
{¶ 13} Groner contends that she did not knowingly submit false 
statements to the court.  Instead, she made the statements in good faith and 
believed that they were correct.  She further contends that the court did not 
consider or rely on the assertions she had made. 
{¶ 14} Groner notes that relator admitted that the probate court did not 
rely on and was not misled by the document Groner filed, and counsel 
acknowledged that she was remorseful. 
Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct 
{¶ 15} The board found that Groner had violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.1, 
3.3(a)(1) and (3), and 4.1, and we agree.  There was clear and convincing 
evidence that in a pleading, Groner made a number of false statements that had no 
basis in law or fact. 
{¶ 16} We do not agree that the evidence supports a finding that Groner 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), (d), and (h), however.  The record demonstrates that 
ten days after Groner filed the objections, she filed a motion for mediation in 
which she attempted to amend the objections to remove any allegations of 
criminal charges and any statements concerning the bond.  In addition, counsel for 
relator agreed that while the exhibit attached to the objections may have 
demonstrated negligence or recklessness, it fell short of being intentionally 
fraudulent or deceitful.  Counsel further admitted that the probate court did not 
rely on the information that Groner submitted, and therefore, it was not misled. 
{¶ 17} We agree that the evidence does not reach the level of clear and 
convincing sufficient to establish that Groner violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), (d), or 
(h).  Consequently, we dismiss those alleged violations. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 18} The purpose of the disciplinary proceedings is to investigate the 
conduct and fitness of the attorney to practice law in order “to safeguard the 
courts and to protect the public from the misconduct of those who are licensed to 
practice law.”  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Weaver (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 97, 100, 70 
O.O.2d 175, 322 N.E.2d 665.  Thus, the purpose underlying a disciplinary 
sanction is not to punish the offender, but to protect the public.  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. O’Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204, 2004-Ohio-4704, 815 N.E.2d 286, ¶ 53. 
{¶ 19} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the duties violated and 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.  We also weigh evidence of 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. 
{¶ 20} Here, the panel accepted, and the board agreed with, the three 
mitigating factors stipulated by the parties:  that Groner had no prior disciplinary 
record, that she has made full and free disclosure and has demonstrated a 
cooperative attitude toward these proceedings, and that she has good character 
and reputation.  Groner also submitted 11 character-reference letters.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (e). 
{¶ 21} In aggravation, the panel determined, and the board agreed, that 
Groner exhibited a selfish motive, committed multiple offenses, has refused to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct, and has caused resulting harm 
to the victim.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (d), (g), and (h). 
{¶ 22} Upon close review of the record, including oral argument during 
which Groner represented herself, we find that Groner exercised poor judgment 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
and recklessly prepared objections using information she hastily obtained and 
inadequately reviewed.  In doing so, she made false statements in a pleading and 
attached a document that, if believed, would mislead the court.  Once Groner 
learned of the erroneous information, she filed a motion for mediation in which 
she moved to dismiss allegations she had made against Brenda Fowler. 
{¶ 23} The victim testified that it made relations with her siblings more 
uncomfortable, but that she already had a strained relationship with them.  The 
case was successfully mediated, and disputes were resolved. 
{¶ 24} Groner requested dismissal of the complaint against her, or in the 
alternative, that she receive a public reprimand.  Relator recommended a public 
reprimand for her violations of Prof.Cond.R. 3.1, 3.3, and 4.1, distinguishing 
Groner’s misconduct from that of two other attorneys who improperly 
disseminated information and/or lied to a court as more egregious.  In 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Rohrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 65, 2009-Ohio-5930, 919 N.E.2d 
180, we imposed a six-month suspension for directing a staff member to deliver a 
copy of a motion to a local newspaper in violation of a court order prohibiting 
communication with the media.  Id. at ¶ 34, 54.  The respondent had blamed the 
breach on his staff person and had then discharged her.  Id. at ¶ 19.  In 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Robinson, 126 Ohio St.3d 371, 2010-Ohio-3829, 933 
N.E.2d 1095, we suspended respondent’s license for one year after he removed 
confidential documents from his law firm and provided them to competitor firms 
with whom he was seeking employment.  Id. at ¶ 10, 49.  He also destroyed some 
of the documents and then lied about his actions in a deposition.  Id. at ¶ 8, 11, 20. 
{¶ 25} However, the circumstances in this case are more akin to those in 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Agopian, 112 Ohio St.3d 103, 2006-Ohio-6510, 858 
N.E.2d 368, in which we issued a public reprimand for the respondent’s 
submitting inaccurate fee bills to a court for legal services rendered to indigent 
criminal defendants.  Id. at ¶ 6, 15.  In light of Agopian’s mitigating 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
circumstances—no prior disciplinary record, cooperation in the disciplinary 
process, accepting responsibility for the misconduct, and character letters—we 
rejected the board’s recommended sanction of a one-year stayed suspension.  Id. 
at ¶ 15. 
{¶ 26} We do not condone what can only be described as reckless and 
sloppy conduct that resulted in Groner’s filing false and misleading statements in 
probate court.  Nevertheless, in light of the mitigating circumstances, including 
resolution of the underlying probate matter, we do not perceive that an actual 
suspension from the practice of law is necessary to protect the public from further 
misconduct.  Therefore, we find that the circumstances in Groner’s case warrant a 
six-month suspension from the practice of law with the entire six months stayed 
on the condition that she commit no further misconduct.  If Groner fails to comply 
with the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and she will serve the full 
six-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to Groner. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Gorman, Malarcik, Pierce & Vuillemin and Donald J. Malarcik Jr.; and 
Alfred E. Schrader, for relator. 
 
Betty Groner; and Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter and Rasheeda Kahn, for 
respondent. 
______________________