Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Freedman

Citation: 2011-Ohio-1959

Docket Number: 20102170

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-04-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Freedman, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1959.] 
 
 
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-1959 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. FREEDMAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. Freedman,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1959.] 
Attorneys at law — Violations of Rules of Professional Conduct — Failure to 
communicate with a client — Failure to notify client of lack of 
professional-liability insurance — Public reprimand. 
(No. 2010-2170 — Submitted February 2, 2011 — Decided April 27, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-045. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Bruce Richard Freedman of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0023864, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1981.  In 
June 2010, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a complaint charging respondent 
with multiple violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct arising from 
his representation of a husband and wife who were preparing to file for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
bankruptcy.  The parties have submitted stipulations of fact and agree that 
respondent has violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4 (requiring a lawyer to reasonably 
communicate with a client), 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the 
lawyer does not maintain professional-liability insurance), and 1.5(d)(3) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from denominating a fee as earned upon receipt, 
nonrefundable, or in similar terms without simultaneously advising the client in 
writing that the client may be entitled to a refund of all or part of the fee if the 
lawyer does not complete the representation), and relator has dismissed four other 
alleged violations. 
{¶ 2} Pursuant to Section 3(C) of the Rules and Regulations Governing 
Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”), the matter was deemed to have 
been submitted without hearing.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline has accepted the parties’ agreed stipulations of fact and misconduct.  
The board has also adopted the parties’ recommended sanction of a public 
reprimand.  We agree that respondent has committed professional misconduct as 
found by the board and that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The stipulated facts of this case demonstrate that in January 2009, 
a husband and wife paid respondent at $3500 flat fee to examine their personal 
and business finances, handle matters with their creditors, and determine whether 
filing for bankruptcy was appropriate either for their businesses or for them 
personally.  There was no written fee agreement, and respondent did not advise 
the couple, in writing or otherwise, that they might be entitled to a refund of all or 
part of the fee if he did not complete the representation.  Nor did he advise them 
that he did not carry malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 4} Respondent acknowledges that he did not return the couple’s 
telephone calls as promptly as he should have and that he should have called them 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
more frequently than he did.  Although he filed a motion for leave to plead in an 
action filed against the couple by one of their creditors, he acknowledges that he 
did not advise them that he had done so. 
{¶ 5} When the couple could not reach respondent in October 2009, they 
informed him by e-mail that they were terminating his services and requested a 
complete refund of their retainer.  Respondent believed that he had rendered 
services exceeding the value of the retainer and has not refunded any portion of it.  
Although the couple and their businesses have filed for bankruptcy, they have not 
listed any portion of the $3,500 fee they paid to respondent or any malpractice 
action against him as assets of the bankruptcy, nor has their bankruptcy trustee 
sought return of the fee. 
{¶ 6} The parties have stipulated and the panel and board have found 
that by failing to communicate with the clients in a timely manner, failing to keep 
them reasonably informed of the status of their case, and failing to comply with 
requests for information by the clients, respondent has violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4.  
They further stipulated and the panel and board found that by failing to notify the 
clients of his failure to maintain malpractice insurance and the possibility that 
they could be entitled to a refund of any unearned fee, respondent has violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c), and 1.5(d)(3).  We adopt these stipulated 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 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} The parties have stipulated and the panel and board have found 
that none of the BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) aggravating factors are present.  As 
mitigating factors, the parties have stipulated to the absence of a prior disciplinary 
record in almost 30 years of practice, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, 
respondent’s acknowledgement of his errors and willingness to apologize to his 
clients for his misconduct, respondent’s full and free disclosure to the disciplinary 
board, and respondent’s character and reputation.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e). 
{¶ 9} The panel and board declined to characterize respondent’s 
acknowledgment of his errors and willingness to apologize as a mitigating factor 
pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c), observing that the record contains no 
evidence that respondent did, in fact, apologize.  They did, however, accept the 
remaining stipulated factors, including respondent’s expression of remorse. 
{¶ 10} Citing a number of cases publicly reprimanding attorneys for 
similar misconduct, and acknowledging that respondent has practiced law for 
almost 30 years without a disciplinary violation, the panel and board recommend 
that we publicly reprimand respondent for his misconduct in this matter. 
{¶ 11} In Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Godles, 128 Ohio St.3d 279, 2010-
Ohio-6274, 943 N.E.2d 988, ¶ 12, 14, 18, we publicly reprimanded an attorney 
who had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(1) through (5) (requiring a lawyer to 
reasonably communicate with a client), 1.4(b) (requiring a lawyer to explain 
matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation), and 1.4(c) and DR 1-104(A)(both 
requiring a lawyer to inform the client at the time of the engagement or at any 
time subsequent to the engagement if the lawyer does not maintain professional-
liability insurance).  We have also publicly reprimanded an attorney who 
neglected a client’s legal matter, failed to hold a client’s funds separate from her 
own, and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent damage or prejudice to a client 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
before withdrawing from representation.  Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda, 111 Ohio 
St.3d 418, 2006-Ohio-5860, 856 N.E.2d 973, ¶ 9, 15. 
{¶ 12} Having 
considered 
respondent’s 
conduct, 
the 
applicable 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and sanctions imposed in comparable cases, 
we adopt the board’s recommended sanction.  Bruce Richard Freedman is hereby 
publicly reprimanded for violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.4, 1.4(c), and 1.5(d)(3).  Costs 
are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Lee Peterson and Brian M. Pierce, for relator. 
Dennis J. Bartek, for respondent. 
______________________