Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Martin

Citation: 2011-Ohio-6396

Docket Number: 2011-1401

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Martin, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-6396.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-6396 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. MARTIN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Martin,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-6396.] 
Attorney misconduct—Failure to cooperate in investigation of alleged 
misconduct—One-year suspension, all stayed on condition. 
(No. 2011-1401—Submitted September 7, 2011—Decided December 15, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-013. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David Martin, of Sylvania, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0039953, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1988.  In 
February 2011, relator, the Toledo Bar Association, filed a five-count complaint 
charging Martin with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct 
arising from his conduct while representing five clients in various legal matters. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} In accordance with 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.”), Martin 
entered into an agreement with relator on June 7, 2011, in which he admitted 
having violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to cooperate in the investigations 
of his alleged misconduct and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1 by knowingly failing to respond 
to a demand for information from a disciplinary authority.  Relator withdrew the 
allegations of misconduct relating to Martin’s underlying attorney-client 
relationships.  The parties stipulated that a one-year suspension stayed on 
condition of one year of probation and monitoring was the appropriate sanction. 
{¶ 3} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline voted 
to accept the proposed agreement and sanction. 
{¶ 4} We accept the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 5} The stipulated facts demonstrate that on November 15, 2007, 
Martin met with Anne Furey and Gregory Risk to discuss preparation of wills.  
The couple paid Martin a $350 fee for the service.  When the wills were not 
immediately received, Furey and Risk filed a grievance with the Toledo Bar 
Association, and Martin later reimbursed the $350 fee.  Martin did not respond to 
the grievance and was notified by letter on June 20, 2008, of the need to provide a 
written narrative response.  He again failed to reply, and on July 18, 2009, the 
investigation report was prepared without Martin’s  written response.  After 
further discovery, Martin was charged with violating Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.1. 
 
 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
Count II 
{¶ 6} In late 2000, Martin was hired to assist with liquidating certain 
property belonging to Ryan Black.  Black filed a grievance with relator when 
Martin failed to provide him with an accounting.  Martin did not respond to the 
grievance and was notified by letter on July 11, 2008, of the need to provide a 
written narrative response.  He again failed to reply, and was charged with 
violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d) (failure to provide an accounting), Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G), and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1. 
Count III 
{¶ 7} On June 4, 2007, John Cunningham paid Martin a retainer of 
$1,500, but terminated the representation six months later and sought a refund of 
the unused portion of the retainer.  Martin sent Cunningham a check for $760.  On 
January 24, 2009, Cunningham filed a grievance with relator.  Martin was notified 
of the grievance by letter and was asked to provide a written narrative response 
within 14 days.  He was also asked to provide a response in a letter dated August 
19, 2009, and he again failed to do so.  After further discovery, Martin was again 
charged with violating Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1. 
Count IV 
{¶ 8} In January 2008, Abigail Donbrosky paid Martin a $1,500 retainer 
to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy on her behalf.  After having no contact with Martin 
for some time, Donbrosky filed a grievance with relator on July 6, 2009.  Martin 
was notified of the grievance by letter and was asked to respond with a written 
narrative within 14 days.  Martin wrote to the investigator and requested an 
additional ten days to respond.  He also sent e-mails stating that his response was 
forthcoming.  Eventually, the investigation report was prepared without Martin’s 
narrative.  Martin was charged with violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (failure to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client) and 1.4(a)(2), (3), 
and (4) (failure to reasonably consult with the client, failure to keep the client 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
reasonably informed, and failure to comply with reasonable requests for 
information from the client).  He was also charged with violating Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1. 
Count V 
{¶ 9} On July 1, 2008, Michelle Pratt retained Martin to represent her in 
foreclosure actions and in a bankruptcy filing.  Pratt paid a retainer of $1,500, but 
after becoming dissatisfied with Martin’s  progress, Pratt filed a grievance on July 
31, 2009.  Martin was notified of the grievance by letter and was asked to respond 
in writing. He did not respond, even after he received a second letter reminding 
him to do so, and the investigation report was prepared without Martin’s 
narrative.  Martin was charged with violating Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1.3, and 
1.4(a)(2), (3), and (4).  Martin was also charged with violating Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1. 
Agreement 
{¶ 10} After the formal complaint was filed against him, Martin 
responded to relator’s discovery requests and eventually explained to relator’s 
satisfaction that he had not violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in his 
representations of the aforementioned clients.  Martin and relator entered into an 
agreement on June 7, 2011, in which he admitted violating Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) 
and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1.  These violations arose from his failure to respond to and 
cooperate in the investigations in all five counts. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties 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.  We also weigh evidence of the 
aggravating and mitigating circumstances listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 
N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 12} In mitigation, the board noted that Martin had no prior disciplinary 
history, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  The board found that the failure to 
cooperate with relator’s inquiries was an aggravating factor, BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(e), but that further investigation did not reveal actionable violations.  
None of the complaining clients appears to have suffered financial harm, since 
Martin did complete some legal matters, refunded unearned retainer fees, BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c), and, where needed, other attorneys provided the required 
legal services.  The board agreed with the parties that Martin’s failure to 
cooperate was uncharacteristic of his usual conduct, BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(e), and that the disciplinary investigations all arose during his handling 
of major litigation spanning a nine-year period in Anton v. SBC Global Servs., 
Inc., E.D.Mich. No. 2:01-CV-40098-SFC.  The board found that Martin’s failure 
to cooperate was likely due to his focus on the Anton case. 
{¶ 13} Based upon Martin’s own admissions that he violated Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1 and the fact that he does not have a prior 
disciplinary record, the board recommends that we impose a one-year stayed 
suspension as agreed upon by the parties on the condition of one year of probation 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9) and the appointment of a monitoring lawyer.  We 
adopt the board’s recommended sanction. 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, David Martin is suspended from the practice of law 
for a period of one year with the entire year stayed.  The stayed suspension shall 
include one year of probation and monitoring, and the costs of these proceedings 
shall be taxed to Martin. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
__________________ 
William G. Meyer and Michael A. Bonfiglio, for relator. 
Alvin E. Matthews Jr., for respondent. 
______________________