Case Title: Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Braun

Citation: 2012-Ohio-5136

Docket Number: 2012-0667

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-11-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as  
Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Braun, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5136.] 
 
 
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-5136 
TRUMBULL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BRAUN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as  Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Braun,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5136.] 
Attorney misconduct, including failing to diligently represent and consult with 
client, failing to hold client funds in a trust account separate from 
attorney’s funds, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary 
investigation—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2012-0667—Submitted June 6, 2012—Decided November 8, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-030. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Gary Lee Braun of Leavittsburg, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0021431, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1983.  
On September 20, 2000, we suspended Braun from the practice of law for one 
year, with six months of that year stayed, for neglecting client matters, failing to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
seek lawful client objectives, and prejudicing a client during the course of 
representation.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Braun, 90 Ohio St.3d 138, 735 N.E.2d 
430 (2000).  On June 14, 2002, we found Braun in contempt of our September 
2000 order because he had not surrendered his attorney-registration card or filed 
his affidavit of compliance.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Braun, 95 Ohio St.3d 1492, 
2002-Ohio-2871, 769 N.E.2d 874.  On June 15, 2006, we reinstated Braun to the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Braun, 2006-Ohio-2997. 
{¶ 2} On April 11, 2011, relator, Trumbull County Bar Association, filed 
a complaint alleging that Braun had committed professional misconduct by, 
among other things, failing to diligently represent and consult with his client; 
failing to keep the client informed and to respond to requests for information; 
failing to hold the client’s funds in a trust account, separate from his own funds; 
and failing to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation.  Braun did not 
file an answer, and relator therefore moved for an entry of default. 
{¶ 3} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
appointed a master commissioner, who found that Braun had committed some of 
the charged misconduct and recommended that he be indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact 
and misconduct as well as the recommended sanction.  Other than the one 
exception noted below, we adopt the board’s report, and we indefinitely suspend 
Braun from the practice of law. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Based on the sworn evidence submitted by relator, the board found 
that on September 15, 2009, John E. Mirto retained Braun to represent him in a 
divorce action.  Although Braun did not provide Mirto with a written fee 
agreement or otherwise memorialize the terms and conditions of Braun’s 
representation, Braun requested a $250 retainer to “get the case going.”  Mirto 
paid the retainer by personal check, which Braun cashed.  Mirto also provided 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
Braun with papers and documents to pursue the divorce action and directed him to 
file the proceeding in Trumbull County.  Mirto told Braun that his wife was 
attempting to establish residency in Fulton County so she could file her own 
action for divorce there.  Braun promised to promptly prepare and file the divorce 
complaint in Trumbull County. 
{¶ 5} Mirto, however, did not hear anything from Braun, nor did Mirto 
receive copies of the divorce papers that Braun had promised to prepare and file 
in Trumbull County.  Mirto called Braun on several occasions, but Braun did not 
return any of his phone calls.  By October 20, 2009, Mirto’s wife filed an action 
for divorce in Fulton County.  Because of Braun’s inaction, Mirto was required to 
secure new counsel in Fulton County and defend the divorce action there. 
{¶ 6} On November 7, 2009, Mirto was arrested in Fulton County while 
attempting to visit his son.  Mirto called Braun from the back seat of the police 
cruiser, and Braun agreed to secure bond for Mirto’s release and to represent him 
in the criminal action in Fulton County.  Mirto was subsequently arraigned on 
November 9, 2009, and released on his own recognizance.  Braun, however, 
failed to enter an appearance in the criminal case and would not return any of 
Mirto’s subsequent telephone calls.  Again, Mirto was forced to secure different 
counsel to represent him in Fulton County. 
{¶ 7} Mirto subsequently filed a grievance against Braun with relator.  In 
February 2010, relator sent Braun a letter of inquiry requesting that he contact 
relator to discuss the complaint.  Braun did not respond.  In August 2010, relator 
sent Braun another letter informing him that failure to cooperate in an 
investigation constitutes a disciplinary violation and urging him to contact relator 
as soon as possible.  According to relator, in September 2010, one of relator’s 
investigators finally reached Braun by telephone, and Braun and the investigator 
met in person.  Nonetheless, on April 11, 2011, relator filed its formal complaint, 
which Braun accepted by certified mail.  However, Braun failed to file an answer 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
or otherwise appear in this action, despite further attempts by relator to contact 
him in June and July of 2011. 
{¶ 8} The master commissioner and board found that Braun’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult with the 
client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished), 
1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter), and 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as 
practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client) and Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation).  
We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
{¶ 9} Relator also charged Braun with violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) 
(requiring a lawyer to hold funds of clients in an interest-bearing client trust 
account, separate from the lawyer’s own funds), 1.15(a)(1) (requiring a lawyer to 
maintain a copy of any fee agreement with each client), 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a 
lawyer to maintain a record for each client on whose behalf funds are held), 
1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit into a client trust account legal fees and 
expenses that have been paid in advance), and 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to 
promptly deliver funds or other property that the client is entitled to receive, and 
upon request, to promptly render a full accounting of funds or property in which a 
client or third party has an interest).  The board recommends that we dismiss the 
charges under Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2), 1.15(c), and 1.15(d) for 
insufficient evidence.  We adopt the board’s findings and hereby dismiss these 
charges.  The board found, however, that sufficient evidence existed to prove a 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(1) violation.  We disagree and find that the record does not 
clearly and convincingly show that Braun committed the alleged misconduct.  
Accordingly, we dismiss this charge. 
 
 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} 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.  
{¶ 11} We have already addressed how Braun breached ethical duties 
owed to his client.  He not only neglected client matters by failing to keep Mirto 
reasonably informed and failing to comply with Mirto’s reasonable requests, he 
also retained a fee without performing the work.  In addition, Braun failed to 
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation. 
{¶ 12} The board did not find any mitigating factors in this case.  The 
aggravating factors are that Braun has a prior disciplinary record for similar 
misconduct, he did not cooperate in the disciplinary process, he refused to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, his conduct harmed a vulnerable 
client, and he failed to make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (e), 
(g), (h), and (i).  In light of these factors, the master commissioner and the board 
recommended that Braun be indefinitely suspended for his misconduct. 
{¶ 13} We have previously recognized that “an attorney’s neglect of legal 
matters and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation warrant 
an indefinite suspension.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 
365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19; see also Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269, 2010-Ohio-136, 921 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 10.  We agree with 
the board that an indefinite suspension is warranted here. 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, Gary Lee Braun is indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Braun. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Randil J. Rudloff, Bar Counsel, and Edward L. Lavelle, Assistant Bar 
Counsel, for relator. 
______________________