Case Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Bruner

Citation: 2012-Ohio-4326

Docket Number: 2012-0307

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-09-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Bruner, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4326.] 
 
 
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-4326 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. BRUNER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Bruner,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4326.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to act with reasonable diligence in representing 
clients—Failure to communicate with client—Charging excessive fees—
Two-year suspension, stayed on condition of reimbursement. 
(No. 2012-0307—Submitted March 7, 2012—Decided September 27, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-076. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Harvey B. Bruner of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0004829, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1974.  
On August 15, 2011, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, charged Bruner with 
professional misconduct arising from his neglect, failure to reasonably 
communicate, and charging clearly excessive fees in three client matters.  On 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
January 20, 2012, relator filed an amended complaint alleging the same 
misconduct, but modifying a factual allegation. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement 
filed on January 30, 2012.  See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  In the 
parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, Bruner stipulates to the facts as alleged 
in relator’s complaint—namely, that he neglected client matters by filing 
inaccurate documents in one case and failing to timely file an appeal in another 
and that he charged clearly excessive fees, failed to advise clients of his hourly 
rate, and failed to maintain time sheets, notes, or records to document the time he 
spent working on client matters. 
{¶ 3} The parties stipulate that Bruner’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 
1.4 (requiring a lawyer to reasonably communicate with a client), and 1.5(a) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from charging an illegal or clearly excessive fee). 
{¶ 4} The parties agree that no aggravating factors exist and that 
mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a 
dishonest or selfish motive, full and free disclosure and a cooperative attitude 
toward the disciplinary proceedings, and Bruner’s good character and reputation 
aside from the charged misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), 
and (e). 
{¶ 5} Based upon these substantial mitigating factors, the parties 
stipulated that a two-year suspension, all stayed on the condition that he make 
restitution of $1,000 to Michael Cox, $8,500 to Shawn Burton, and $2,500 to 
Robert Haidet, in accordance with the schedule attached to the consent-to-
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
discipline agreement, which requires restitution to be paid in full by July 15, 
2012. 
{¶ 6} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11, and citing Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 603, 2011-Ohio-4381, 955 N.E.2d 354 (imposing a two-
year conditionally stayed suspension for an attorney who failed to file an appellate 
brief in a client’s appeal of his convictions for rape, murder, and attempted 
tampering with evidence), they recommend that we adopt the agreement in its 
entirety.  We agree that Bruner violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5(a) and that, 
consistent with the parties’ agreement, this conduct warrants a two-year, 
conditionally stayed suspension.  Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement. 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, Bruner is hereby suspended from the practice of law 
in Ohio for two years, all stayed on the condition that he make restitution of 
$1,000 to Michael Cox, $8,500 to Shawn Burton, and $2,500 to Robert Haidet, 
within 30 days of the date of this order.  If Bruner fails to comply with the 
condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and Bruner shall serve the full two-
year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Bruner. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Eugene P. Whetzel;  Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., and 
Geoffrey Stern; Smith, Rolfes & Skavdahl Co., L.P.A., and  M. Andrew Sway, for 
relator. 
Richard C. Alkire Co., L.P.A., Richard C. Alkire, and Dean C. Nieding, 
for respondent. 
______________________