Case Title: Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marshall

Citation: 2009-Ohio-501

Docket Number: 20081737

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-02-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marshall, 121 Ohio St.3d 197, 2009-Ohio-501.] 
 
 
 
WARREN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MARSHALL. 
[Cite as Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marshall, 
 121 Ohio St.3d 197, 2009-Ohio-501.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disbarment. 
(No. 2008-1737 — Submitted October 14, 2008 — Decided February 12, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-090. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Bernard Sanford Marshall Jr. of Lebanon, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0067838, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1997.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends 
that this court permanently disbar respondent, based on findings that he neglected 
legal matters entrusted to him in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3), intentionally failed 
to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for legal services 
in violation of DR 7-101(A)(2), and knowingly failed to respond to a demand for 
information from a disciplinary authority in violation of Rule 8.1(b) of the Rules 
of Professional Conduct.  We agree that respondent violated the Code of 
Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct as found by the 
board, and we further agree that permanent disbarment is the appropriate sanction 
for his misconduct. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Warren County Bar Association, charged respondent with 
numerous counts of misconduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility 
(effective through January 2007) and the Rules of Professional Conduct (effective 
February 1, 2007).  In response, respondent denied the allegations, and a hearing 
was held before a panel of the board.  The following evidence was adduced. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Misconduct 
Smith Grievance 
{¶ 3} Respondent entered into a written agreement to represent Jeremy 
and Janelle Smith in connection with a filing for bankruptcy protection.  The 
Smiths paid respondent a retainer of $750 and $300 in filing fees, and they 
provided respondent with the paperwork required for filing the bankruptcy 
petition.  Respondent did not promptly file their petition with the bankruptcy 
court, and when he did, it failed to conform to the filing requirements.  The 
bankruptcy court issued an order and notice regarding deficient filing, to which 
respondent failed to respond, and the bankruptcy court therefore dismissed the 
Smiths’ petition. 
{¶ 4} Respondent did not notify the Smiths of the dismissal of their 
petition, nor did he respond to their repeated calls inquiring about the status of 
their case.  Nor did respondent return any of the retainer.  The Smiths filed a 
grievance against respondent with the Warren County Bar Association’s certified 
grievance committee, and the committee sent respondent a copy of the grievance 
and twice requested his response; however, respondent never responded to the 
grievance committee. 
Binkley Grievance 
{¶ 5} Respondent represented Shaunda Neal in a child-custody dispute 
through the Legal Aid Society, and Neal’s fiancé, J. Robert Binkley, retained 
respondent to represent her in some criminal matters also.  Binkley paid 
respondent two retainers: one of $500 and one of $300.  Respondent then agreed 
to represent Neal in a renewed child-custody dispute with the child’s grandmother 
and was paid $900 for these services, but Neal died with this action still pending. 
{¶ 6} In addition, Binkley hired respondent to represent Neal in possible 
civil and criminal actions regarding bad checks that Neal had written, and paid 
respondent $3,000.  However, after Neal filed for bankruptcy protection, the 
January Term, 2009 
3 
attorney representing her in the bankruptcy discovered that respondent had done 
nothing to settle with the creditors to whom Neal had passed the bad checks. 
{¶ 7} Binkley and Neal repeatedly attempted to contact respondent to 
inquire about the status of the representation, but respondent never responded to 
their calls.  After Neal’s death, Binkley retained attorney Ted Gudorf to obtain an 
accounting from respondent of the fees paid for legal work undertaken but not 
performed.  Respondent did not respond to Gudorf’s attempts to contact him until 
Gudorf called an attorney in respondent’s office.  Even then, respondent did not 
provide the requested accounting. 
{¶ 8} Binkley then filed a grievance against respondent with the Warren 
County Bar Association’s certified grievance committee, and that committee sent 
respondent a copy of the grievance and requested his response.  However, 
respondent never responded to the grievance committee. 
Failure to Cooperate 
{¶ 9} At a prehearing telephone conference with the hearing panel chair, 
the parties agreed to the time and place for conducting the evidentiary hearing. 
Also, the panel chair by order set a schedule for discovery and the service of 
requests for admissions.  Respondent never responded to relator’s requests for 
admissions, and without objection, the panel chair deemed relator’s requests for 
admissions admitted. 
{¶ 10} 
The panel chair conducted a second prehearing telephone 
conference.  Despite the panel chair’s order and notice,  respondent never 
appeared. 
{¶ 11} 
Finally, respondent did not appear at the evidentiary hearing.  
After recessing in order to wait for respondent, the panel conducted the 
evidentiary hearing in his absence. 
The Panel and the Board’s Recommendation 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 12} 
Regarding the Smiths’ and Binkley’s grievances, the panel 
concluded that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2). 
{¶ 13} 
The panel also concluded that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 
8.1(b) in two separate counts by his failure to respond to relator’s letters regarding 
Binkley’s grievance and by failing to respond to relator’s demands for discovery 
regarding the allegations raised in the Smiths’ and Binkley’s grievances. 
{¶ 14} 
The panel found that there were no mitigating factors.  As 
aggravating factors, the panel found that respondent had two prior disciplinary 
violations resulting in separate two-year suspensions from the practice of law.  
See Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marshall, 105 Ohio St.3d 59, 2004-Ohio-7011, 822 
N.E.2d 355 (two-year stayed suspension), and Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marshall, 
113 Ohio St.3d 54, 2007-Ohio-980, 862 N.E.2d 519 (two-year suspension).  
Respondent’s repeated violations therefore demonstrate a pattern of misconduct.  
The panel concluded that respondent’s failure to do the work he had promised to 
do, his deceiving of clients regarding the status of that work, and his failure to 
return unearned fees upon demand represent dishonest conduct.  In addition, the 
panel found that respondent failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process. 
{¶ 15} 
Citing Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Smith, 115 Ohio St.3d 95, 
2007-Ohio-4270, 873 N.E.2d 1224, a case involving a similar factual situation, 
the panel recommended that respondent be disbarred.  The board adopted the 
panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the recommendation of 
disbarment.  Respondent has not responded to this court’s order to show cause 
why the recommendation of the board should not be accepted. 
{¶ 16} 
We accept the board’s findings that respondent neglected legal 
matters entrusted to him in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3), intentionally failed to 
carry out contracts of employment in violation of DR 7-101(A)(2), and knowingly 
failed to respond to a demand for information from a disciplinary authority in 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b). 
January Term, 2009 
5 
Sanction 
{¶ 17} 
When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the duties the lawyer violated, the lawyer’s mental 
state, 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, at ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in Section 10 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, at ¶ 21.  Because each disciplinary case is 
unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take into 
account “all relevant factors” in determining what sanction should be imposed.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 18} 
We accept the board’s finding that there are no mitigating 
factors.  Regarding aggravating factors, we accept the board’s finding that 
respondent had prior disciplinary violations resulting in suspensions, that he had 
engaged in a pattern of misconduct, that he had engaged in dishonest conduct, and 
that he failed to cooperate with the disciplinary process. 
{¶ 19} 
The primary purpose of the disciplinary process is to protect the 
public from lawyers who are unworthy of the trust and confidence essential to the 
attorney-client relationship and to allow us to ascertain the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Agopian, 112 Ohio St.3d 103, 2006-Ohio-
6510, 858 N.E.2d 368, at ¶ 10.  In this case, permanent disbarment from the 
practice of law is appropriate.  Respondent’s repeated neglect of his clients’ legal 
matters, his acceptance of a retainer while failing to carry out the representation, 
his prior disciplinary violations resulting in suspensions from the practice of law, 
his dishonesty, his engagement in a pattern of misconduct, and his failure to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
cooperate in the disciplinary process demonstrate that he is no longer fit to 
practice law. 
{¶ 20} 
As relator notes, we have imposed the sanction of permanent 
disbarment in similar cases.  See, e.g., Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Smith, 115 
Ohio St.3d 95, 2007-Ohio-4270, 873 N.E.2d 1224, at ¶ 49 (“Respondent’s 
dishonesty in his law practice, his lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process, 
and his repeated neglect of his clients’ legal matters demonstrate that he is not fit 
to practice law”); Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 104 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-
Ohio-6897, 819 N.E.2d 1112, at ¶ 16 (explaining that the presumptive sanction is 
disbarment for those attorneys who accept retainers and then fail to carry out 
contracts of employment); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264, 
2004-Ohio-2683, 809 N.E.2d 1113, at ¶ 15 (“respondent's persistent neglect of his 
clients' interests, failure to perform as promised, failures to account for his clients’ 
money, and lack of any participation in the disciplinary proceedings warrant his 
disbarment”); Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fodal, 100 Ohio St.3d 310, 2003-Ohio-
5852, 798 N.E.2d 1082, at ¶ 32 (“Respondent routinely took his clients’ money 
and provided nothing in return.  In the absence of any compelling mitigating 
evidence, the sanction for this misconduct and his disregard of the disciplinary 
process is disbarment”). 
{¶ 21} 
Based on respondent’s conduct and our precedent, respondent is 
hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in the state of Ohio. 
{¶ 22} 
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
John S. Mengle and Yvonne A. Iverson, for relator. 
______________________