Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraemer

Citation: 2010-Ohio-3300

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-07-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraemer, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3300.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-3300 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. KRAEMER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraemer,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3300.] 
Attorney misconduct — Misappropriation of client fees belonging to law firm — 
Two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions and credit for 
one year of interim suspension. 
(No. 2009-2336 — Submitted March 31, 2010 — Decided July 21, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-052. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Bradley M. Kraemer of West Chester, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0070329, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1998.  
On July 10, 2008, we imposed an interim felony suspension on respondent’s 
license pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4).  In re Kraemer, 118 Ohio St.3d 1514, 
2008-Ohio-3441, 889 N.E.2d 1031. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline now  
recommends that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for a period of two 
years, all stayed on conditions, based upon stipulations and findings that 
respondent misappropriated $7,157.10 in client fees belonging to his law firm.  
Relator objects to the board’s report, arguing that our precedent requires an actual 
suspension from the practice of law for respondent’s misconduct. 
{¶ 3} We accept the board’s factual findings and its conclusion that 
respondent’s conduct violated the ethical standards incumbent on Ohio lawyers.  
However, we sustain relator’s objection and conclude that respondent’s 
misconduct warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law.  Accordingly, 
we suspend respondent for two years, with one year stayed on conditions, and 
credit one year of respondent’s interim felony suspension toward the actual 
suspension. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulated that respondent’s law firm employed him 
pursuant to an oral agreement that he would receive 40 percent of the fees 
collected from the cases on which he worked and the firm would receive the 
remaining 60 percent.  In 2007, respondent failed to remit the agreed 60 percent to 
the firm in relation to nearly $12,000 he collected in fees.  As a result of this theft, 
respondent’s employment was terminated and he was charged with one count of 
theft, a fifth-degree felony.  He promptly entered a guilty plea and was sentenced 
to three years of community control, fined $1,000, and ordered to pay $7,157.10 
in restitution to his former employer. 
{¶ 5} The parties stipulated that respondent’s misappropriation of the 
firm’s share of these fees violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or 
trustworthiness), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
engaging in “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice”), and 
8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on 
the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The panel and board accepted the stipulated 
facts and misconduct, and so do we. 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} 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 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, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated that they believe the appropriate sanction for 
respondent’s misconduct is a two-year suspension, with the second year stayed on 
the conditions that respondent (1) continue regular mental-health treatment at an 
interval to be determined by his treating professional, (2) submit to a law-practice 
monitor appointed by relator upon his return to practice, and (3) refrain from any 
further misconduct.  The panel conducted a hearing to consider evidence and 
arguments regarding mitigation. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the board found that the following 
mitigating factors weighed in favor of a less severe sanction:  respondent’s lack of 
a prior disciplinary record, his payment of restitution, his cooperative attitude 
toward these disciplinary proceedings, and the imposition of other penalties or 
sanctions.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), and (f).  The board also found 
that respondent’s good character and reputation and his diagnosis of “adjustment 
disorder with mixed conduct and emotion” qualified as mitigating factors 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e) and (g).  Additionally, the board 
concluded that respondent’s cessation of criminal activity before he was caught, 
admission of wrongdoing when confronted by the police, and expression of 
sincere remorse at the hearing weighed in favor of a lesser sanction. 
{¶ 9} The only factors the board cited in aggravation were respondent’s 
dishonest or selfish motive in stealing his employer’s funds, and his pattern of 
misconduct involving multiple offenses.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c) and 
(d). 
{¶ 10} After considering these factors and respondent’s request for a 
credit for time served under the interim suspension, the panel and board rejected 
the parties’ recommended sanction of a two-year suspension with one year stayed 
on conditions.  Instead, they recommend that we impose a two-year suspension, 
all stayed on the conditions that respondent (1) continue to make regular visits to 
his treating mental-health professional, at an interval to be determined by that 
professional, (2) upon his return to practice, submit to a law-practice monitor 
appointed by relator, (3) refrain from any further misconduct. 
{¶ 11} In support of its recommendation, the board cites Akron Bar Assn. 
v. Carter, 115 Ohio St.3d 18, 2007-Ohio-4262, 873 N.E.2d 824, and Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Brenner, 122 Ohio St.3d 523, 2009-Ohio-3602, 912 N.E.2d 1116.  But 
in each of those cases, we imposed two-year suspensions with only one year 
stayed for similar misconduct. 
{¶ 12} The board also noted that pursuant to precedent, factors relevant to 
the determination of credit for time served for an interim suspension include the 
presence of remorse and acceptance of responsibility, the length of time the 
criminal conduct occurred and the amount of money involved, and whether the 
conduct was “a one-time, out-of-character mistake.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Margolis, 114 Ohio St.3d 165, 2007-Ohio-3607, 870 N.E.2d 1158, ¶ 26-27.  
While the board found these factors present in this case, it did not recommend that 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
we credit the time respondent served under his interim suspension against the 
actual suspension proposed by the parties.  Instead, the board concluded that we 
should stay respondent’s entire two-year suspension from the practice of law. 
{¶ 13} At first, the distinction between a two-year suspension, all stayed 
on conditions, and a two-year suspension with one year stayed, and a credit for 
one year served under an interim suspension appears to be semantic, because 
under either sanction, respondent will not spend any more actual time out of the 
practice of law, provided that he complies with the conditions of the stay.  
However, we have consistently held that the misappropriation of law-firm funds 
warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law.  Brenner, 122 Ohio  St.3d 
523, 2009-Ohio-3602, 912 N.E.2d 1116, ¶ 21, citing Toledo Bar Assn. v. 
Crossmock, 111 Ohio St.3d 278, 2006-Ohio-5706, 855 N.E.2d 1215 (indefinite 
suspension for attorney's misappropriation of over $300,000 in law-firm funds); 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Yajko (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 385, 674 N.E.2d 684 
(indefinite suspension for misappropriating law-firm funds on 20 occasions); 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 554, 634 N.E.2d 1008 
(indefinite suspension for misappropriation of approximately $200,000 of law-
firm funds); Columbus Bar Assn. v. Osipow (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 338, 626 
N.E.2d 935 (indefinite suspension for repeated failure to report fees to firm, 
misrepresenting expenses, and misappropriation).  Indeed, we are unaware of any 
disciplinary case involving a theft offense in which we have entirely stayed a 
respondent’s suspension.  Moreover, we have required attorneys to serve a period 
of actual suspension for engaging in a course of conduct that involves dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Rohrer, 124 Ohio 
St.3d 65, 2009-Ohio-5930, 919 N.E.2d 180, ¶ 43, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237. 
{¶ 14} Consequently, we conclude that respondent’s conduct warrants an 
actual suspension from the practice of law, and we therefore sustain relator’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
objection.  However, in light of our findings that respondent accepted 
responsibility and expressed sincere remorse for his conduct, that his offenses 
occurred over a short period, four months, and involved only $7,157.10, and in 
the absence of any objection from relator, we credit one year of respondent’s 
interim suspension against his current sanction. 
{¶ 15} Accordingly, Bradley M. Kraemer is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law in the state of Ohio for two years, with one year stayed on the 
conditions that he continue to participate in mental-health counseling and 
complete a two-year term of probation monitored by relator in accordance with 
Gov.Bar R. V(9) following his return to the practice of law.  However, we hereby 
credit one year of respondent’s interim suspension against the one year of actual 
suspension, and terminate the interim felony suspension.  Therefore, respondent 
may immediately apply for reinstatement pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A).  But 
if respondent fails to meet the stated conditions, the stay of his suspension will be 
lifted, and he will serve the remaining one-year actual suspension from the 
practice of law.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
BROWN, C.J., not participating. 
__________________ 
Jonathan Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri and 
Carol Acosta, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Michael T. Gmoser, for respondent. 
______________________