Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Patterson

Citation: 1999-Ohio-337

Docket Number: 19990370

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-06-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Patterson, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 1999-Ohio-337.] 
 
 
 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. PATTERSON. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Patterson (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension — Failing to return 
unearned portion of retainer fee — Failing to cooperate in disciplinary 
investigation — Failing to register with Clerk of the Supreme Court for the 
1997-1999 biennium — Failing to notify Attorney Registration Office of 
current residence and office addresses. 
(No. 99-370 — Submitted April 20, 1999 — Decided June 16, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-17. 
 
On April 6, 1998, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a three-count 
complaint charging respondent, Brent P. Patterson of New Albany, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0044103, with violating several Disciplinary Rules and the Rules 
for the Government of the Bar.  After relator unsuccessfully attempted to serve 
respondent at his last known address, relator served the Clerk of the Supreme 
Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent failed to answer or otherwise 
plead within the time permitted by Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F), and relator’s motion for 
default judgment was considered by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
Based on the complaint and exhibits attached to the motion, in the first 
count, the panel found that in May 1996, Stephen P. Krumlauf retained respondent 
in a domestic relations proceeding by paying him a $1,000 fee, which was to be 
held during respondent’s representation of Krumlauf and then applied against the 
final billing.  In addition, as the matter proceeded, Krumlauf paid respondent 
$725.96 for legal work performed. 
 
 
2
 
In November 1996, respondent sent Krumlauf a letter advising him that he 
was taking an “extended leave of absence” from the practice of law because of his 
fiancée’s battle with cancer.  Respondent cooperated fully with Krumlauf’s new 
counsel in transferring files concerning the domestic relations matter, but despite 
Krumlauf’s requests, respondent never returned the $1,000 retainer, which he had 
not earned.  The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-
102(A)(1) (violating a Disciplinary Rule) and 2-110(A)(3) (failing to promptly 
refund any unearned part of a fee paid in advance). 
 
For the second count, the panel found that once Krumlauf asked relator to 
assist him in recovering the retainer, relator was unsuccessful in its attempts to 
locate respondent.  And because he could not be located, the panel found that 
respondent did not respond to or otherwise cooperate in the disciplinary proceeding 
arising from the Krumlauf matter.  The panel concluded that respondent violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation) and DR 1-
102(A)(1). 
 
On the third count, the panel found that respondent did not register with the 
Clerk of the Supreme Court for the 1997-1999 biennium and did not apprise the 
Attorney Registration Office of his current address. The panel concluded that 
respondent violated Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) (duty to register) and VI(1)(D) (duty to 
notify Attorney Registration Office of current residence and office addresses) as 
well as DR 1-102(A)(1). 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio with his reinstatement contingent upon his refund of the 
unearned retainer fee, with interest, and his certification of a current address.  The 
board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, but instead recommended 
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months and 
that he make full restitution of unearned retainer fees with interest. 
 
 
3
__________________ 
 
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister and David L. Johnson; Bruce A. Campbell, for 
relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings of the board.  Respondent’s fiancée’s 
health problems do not excuse his misconduct.  See, e.g., Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. 
v. Curry (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 181, 185, 680 N.E.2d 966, 969, where we noted, 
“While sympathy can be found for respondent’s ill health, ill health is no excuse 
for a failure to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings.”  See, also, Butler Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Packard (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 539, 540, 639 N.E.2d 1152, 1153.  
Nevertheless, we do not concur with the board’s findings that respondent’s conduct 
in the second and third counts violated a “Disciplinary Rule” for purposes of DR 1-
102(A)(1).  Instead, respondent’s conduct in these counts violated the Rules for the 
Government of the Bar, which are not Disciplinary Rules.  Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Doll (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 273, 274, 685 N.E.2d 1233, 1234; see, also, Preface to 
Code of Professional Responsibility.  We adopt the board’s remaining conclusions. 
 
Given respondent’s misconduct, most notably his violation of DR 2-
110(A)(3) by failing to return the unearned portion of the retainer fee and his 
failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary proceeding, we concur with the 
board that a six-month suspension and an order to make restitution are warranted.  
Cf. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Schuman (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 185, 187, 690 N.E.2d 1, 
2, in which we imposed a comparable sanction for misconduct that included 
violations of DR 2-110(A)(3) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  Accordingly, respondent is 
hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, and he is 
ordered to make full restitution of the retainer fee plus interest.  Costs taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
 
4
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.