Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman

Citation: 2010-Ohio-6149

Docket Number: 20101220

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-12-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6149.] 
 
 
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-6149 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BRUEGGEMAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6149.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness 
to practice law — Failing to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness — Failing to keep client reasonably informed about status of 
case — Failing to respond to client’s request for information — 12-month 
suspension, all stayed, on conditions. 
(No. 2010-1220 — Submitted September 15, 2010 — Decided 
December 21, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-090. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Edward Paul Brueggeman of Columbus, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0029159, was admitted to practice law in Ohio in 1972.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline concluded that 
respondent engaged in professional misconduct and recommends that this court 
suspend his license to practice law for 12 months, but stay that suspension on 
conditions that he serve one year of probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), 
adhere to an existing contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
(“OLAP”), refrain from any additional misconduct, and pay costs.  We agree and 
adopt its recommendation for a 12-month suspension stayed on conditions that he 
serve one year of probation, comply with the OLAP contract, attend counseling, 
and refrain from further misconduct. 
Factual History 
{¶ 2} On December 8, 2008, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a five-
count complaint against the respondent, alleging numerous violations of the Rules 
of Professional Conduct stemming from respondent’s failure to communicate with 
and manage cases for multiple clients and his refusal to cooperate with related 
disciplinary investigations.  The parties submitted the matter on stipulations to a 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievance and Discipline.  After a 
hearing on the matter, the panel adopted the stipulations and made findings of fact 
and conclusions of law and recommended that the respondent be suspended for 12 
months, stayed, with probation, on conditions that he continue his OLAP contract, 
continue counseling, and refrain from further misconduct. 
{¶ 3} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and suggested sanction.  Neither respondent nor relator has objected to the 
board’s recommendation. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 4} A client retained respondent to obtain a dissolution of her marriage 
in June 2007.  When respondent failed to respond to inquiries on several 
occasions, the client filed a grievance against respondent for neglecting to file the 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
dissolution and for failing to respond to her requests for information.  Upon 
receipt of the grievance, relator sent a certified letter of inquiry to respondent, 
which he accepted.  Despite asking for a two-week extension, respondent never 
responded to the letter.  As a result, relator then sent a second certified letter of 
inquiry to respondent, which he again accepted.  However, he failed to respond to 
this letter as well.  In May 2008, nearly a year after he was retained, respondent 
filed the client’s petition for dissolution. 
{¶ 5} The parties stipulated that the misconduct alleged in Count One 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (lawyer shall keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter), and 8.1(b) (lawyer shall not 
knowingly fail to respond to a demand for information from a disciplinary 
authority). 
{¶ 6} Respondent disputed charges in Count One that his conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) (a lawyer shall comply as soon as practicable with 
reasonable requests for information from the client) and 8.4(h) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  
The board found clear and convincing evidence that respondent did violate these 
provisions.  Specifically, the board determined that respondent had violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) because he filed the client’s petition for dissolution nearly 
one year after she retained him and after she filed the grievance against him.  We 
agree with this conclusion.  Moreover, there is clear and convincing evidence that 
respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) in that the stipulations reflect that the 
client unsuccessfully sought information regarding the status of her case from 
respondent on multiple occasions.  Therefore, we adopt the findings and 
conclusions of the board as to Count One. 
Count Two 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 7} A second client retained respondent to prepare a deed.  Respondent 
prepared the deed incorrectly, and it was rejected by the recorder’s office.  
Respondent also misplaced the client’s file, forcing the client to resolve the 
problem himself.  Moreover, respondent admitted that he never filed a corrected 
deed. 
{¶ 8} Upon receipt of the grievance filed by the client, relator sent a 
certified letter of inquiry to respondent, which his wife accepted.  Despite asking 
for a two-week extension, respondent failed to respond.  A second certified letter 
of inquiry was accepted by respondent, but he again failed to respond. 
{¶ 9} Relator and respondent stipulated that the conduct described in 
Count Two violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2) (a lawyer shall reasonably consult 
with a client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be 
accomplished) and 8.1(b). 
{¶ 10} Respondent 
disputed 
charges 
that 
his 
conduct 
violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(4), and 8.4(h).  But the board found clear and convincing 
evidence that he had violated these provisions, as well as Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3).  
Specifically, the board found a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) based on 
respondent’s loss of the client’s files and his failure to resolve the client’s case, 
which forced the client to resolve it without respondent’s help.  We agree that this 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  The board also found a violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, a finding supported by respondent’s failure to file a corrected 
deed once the initial deed was rejected by the recorder’s office. 
{¶ 11} However, we do not find clear and convincing evidence of the 
allegations in Count Two that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3)1 or  
1.4(a)(4). Respondent testified that he had communicated with the client regularly 
regarding the status of the deed, and other than the client’s unsworn grievance, 
                                                 
1.  The parties did not stipulate to and respondent did not dispute a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
1.4(a)(3). 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
there is no evidence that respondent failed to respond to requests for information 
from the client.  Thus, we adopt the findings and conclusions of the board as to 
Count Two, except with respect those relating to Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) and 
1.4(a)(4). 
Count Three 
{¶ 12} A third client hired respondent to handle the disposition of an 
estate and paid an initial fee; respondent, however, failed to complete the work 
necessary to resolve the estate.  The client sent a letter to respondent, expressing 
concerns about the lack of information provided about the case and requested the 
return of the fee paid and documents provided to respondent.  Upon receiving no 
response from respondent, the client filed a grievance.  She also filed an action in 
small claims court seeking return of the fee, and when respondent did not answer 
or appear, she obtained a default judgment. 
{¶ 13} Relator sent a certified letter of inquiry to respondent’s home 
address, which a family member accepted.  Despite asking for a two-week 
extension, respondent failed to respond to the letter.  Relator then sent a second 
certified letter, which respondent accepted, but again he did not reply.  Fifteen 
months after agreeing to handle the estate, respondent returned the client’s 
documents and refunded the fee. 
{¶ 14} Relator and respondent stipulated to violations of Prof.Cond.R. 
1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(d) (lawyer shall promptly deliver to a client any 
funds or property the client is entitled to receive), and 8.1(b). 
{¶ 15} Respondent disputed charges that the conduct alleged in Count 
Three violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  Nonetheless, the board found clear and 
convincing evidence that respondent violated this provision because respondent 
did not return the client’s money until after the grievance had been filed.  We 
agree and thus adopt the findings and conclusions of the board as to this count. 
Count Four 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 16} A fourth client filed a grievance against respondent regarding his 
lack of communication with respect to a family trust.  Relator sent a certified 
letter of inquiry to respondent, which he accepted, but, despite asking for a two-
week extension, he failed to respond.  Relator sent a second certified letter of 
inquiry, which respondent accepted, but to which he failed to respond until 
several months later. 
{¶ 17} Relator and respondent stipulated to a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
8.1(b).  Respondent disputed charges that his conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h).  The board nonetheless found clear and convincing evidence that 
respondent had violated this provision because he waited to contact the client until 
after the grievance had been filed.  We agree and thus adopt the findings and 
conclusions of the board. 
Count Five 
{¶ 18} A fifth client hired respondent in 2005 to provide assistance in 
resolving his father’s estate.  When respondent failed to address matters relating 
to the disposition of a time-share property and a bank account, the client filed a 
grievance against respondent in late 2007.  Relator sent out three letters of inquiry 
in connection with this grievance, one accepted by respondent’s wife, a second 
accepted by respondent, and a third letter accepted by an unknown person, but 
respondent failed to respond to any of the letters. 
{¶ 19} Relator and respondent stipulated to violations of Prof.Cond.R. 
1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4) and 8.1(b). 
{¶ 20} Respondent 
disputed 
charges 
that 
his 
conduct 
violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). The board nonetheless found clear and convincing evidence 
that respondent violated this provision because when respondent could not resolve 
the time-share property and bank matters, he stopped communicating with the 
client.  We agree with this conclusion.  Thus, we adopt the findings and 
conclusions of the board as to Count Five. 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 21} 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(B) 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. 
{¶ 22} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had 
displayed a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, and failed to 
cooperate in the disciplinary process.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), and (e).  
The parties stipulated that respondent’s lack of a prior disciplinary record was a 
mitigating factor pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2).  The board found the 
following additional mitigating factors: absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, 
full and free disclosure to disciplinary authority or cooperative attitude toward the 
proceeding after the complaint was filed, and good character and reputation.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b), (d), and (e). 
{¶ 23} Respondent contacted OLAP in September 2009.  He testified that 
he felt “frozen in his practice,” avoided matters that needed to be addressed, and 
did not handle conflict well.  He signed a four-year contract with OLAP on 
December 4, 2009 and has continued to comply with its terms.  He has consulted 
a licensed clinical psychologist and is continuing treatment.  His therapist testified 
by deposition, and Stephanie Krznarich of OLAP testified in person.  Both 
professionals agree that respondent suffers from dysthymia, a low-level 
depression lasting two or more years.  Krznarich testified that he has made 
unusually good progress and that his prognosis is good. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 24} When asked if he had an opinion to a reasonable degree of 
professional certainty as to whether there is a causal connection between this 
diagnosis of dysthymia and respondent’s conduct in this case of neglecting clients 
and failing to respond to Disciplinary Counsel, respondent’s therapist answered, 
“I do.  I think it was the ultimate conclusion.”  He also testified that to a 
reasonable degree of professional certainty, respondent can maintain the proper 
competent, ethical, and professional practice of law if he continues to make the 
progress respondent has made. 
{¶ 25} The board found mitigating respondent’s mental disability 
(depression) with a (1) diagnosis of mental disability by a qualified healthcare 
professional, (2) a determination that the mental disability contributed to the cause 
of the misconduct, (3) a sustained period of successful treatment, and (4) a 
prognosis from a qualified healthcare professional that respondent will be able to 
return to competent, ethical professional practice with continued treatment.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(i) through (iv). 
{¶ 26} Neither relator nor respondent has objected to the sanction 
recommended by the board.  We conclude that a 12-month stayed suspension is 
warranted based on respondent’s misconduct.  See, e.g., Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Brown, 124 Ohio St.3d 530, 2010-Ohio-580, 925 N.E.2d 112 (imposing a 12-
month stayed suspension with conditions based, in part, on findings that the 
respondent neglected legal matters and did not act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness).  Thus, having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 
we adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, except with respect 
to the alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) and (4) in Count Two.  In 
addition, we adopt the board’s recommended sanction of a 12-month stayed 
suspension with conditions plus costs. 
January Term, 2010 
9 
 
{¶ 27} Accordingly, Edward Paul Brueggeman is suspended from the 
practice of law for 12 months, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions 
that he serve one year of probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), continue to 
comply with his existing OLAP contract, and refrain from any additional 
misconduct.  If respondent fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay 
will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire 12-month suspension.  Costs 
are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Alvin Mathews, for respondent. 
______________________