Case Title: Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brown

Citation: 2010-Ohio-580

Docket Number: 20091230

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-02-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brown, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-580.] 
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-580 
ALLEN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BROWN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brown,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-580.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to act with reasonable diligence — 
Failure to notify client of receipt of funds — One-year suspension, stayed 
on conditions. 
(No. 2009-1230 — Submitted September 29, 2009 — Decided  
February 24, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-002. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Christi Lee Brown of Lima, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0062696, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1994. 
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has recommended 
that we suspend her license to practice law for one year, all stayed on conditions, 
based on findings that she neglected legal matters, did not act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness, and failed to promptly notify a client of her receipt of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
funds to which the client was entitled.  We agree that respondent committed the 
professional misconduct and that the board’s recommended sanction is 
appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Allen County Bar Association, charged respondent with 
violations of the former Code of Professional Responsibility for acts committed 
before February 1, 2007, and of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct for acts 
committed after that date.  A panel of the board heard the case and dismissed 
some of the charges alleged in the complaint. It found that respondent had 
committed professional misconduct and recommended that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law for one year, all stayed upon conditions.  The 
board adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation. 
{¶ 3} The violations alleged arose from respondent’s representation of 
two clients in separate collection matters.  In each case, respondent was seeking to 
collect on a money judgment. In one instance, respondent accepted a retainer but 
took no steps to collect on the judgment. In the other, respondent ceased all 
activity in the case after collecting only a portion of the judgment and retained 
those funds until threatened with disciplinary action. 
{¶ 4} In both cases, respondent repeatedly ignored written and verbal 
requests from her clients for information on the status of their cases. At the 
hearing, respondent gave two reasons for this.  First, as a solo practitioner, 
respondent followed office-management procedures that were, at best, 
disorganized. Second, respondent admitted to an avoidance response, in which 
despite her knowledge that she “was doing wrong * * * it was easier to do 
something else than it was to address these situations.” 
{¶ 5} Compounding the panel’s concerns over these admissions was 
evidence that respondent had rejected assistance from her local bar association in 
2004 and 2008:  “By her own admission, respondent began having difficulties in 
her practice as early as 2004, yet when the Bar Association also brought this to 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
her attention at that time, she apparently did nothing to get matters in hand.  She 
did not search out appropriate CLE courses, nor turn to others for assistance.  
Granted, she had a busy practice and a household to manage, including for a 
period of time, a son with medical problems * * *. Instead, for whatever reasons, 
she let matters slide.  Thus her professional difficulties compounded and the 
various grievances were filed.  * * *  Of further concern is the fact that when 
offered an experienced mentor in 2008 she failed to respond positively.  To say, 
as does Respondent, that when confronted with an acknowledged error, she copes 
by moving on to do something else signifies a deeper problem.” 
{¶ 6} The panel found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (a lawyer shall 
provide competent representation to a client), 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness), and 1.15 (a lawyer shall promptly notify a 
client when funds are received).  In considering the sanction to be imposed, the 
panel found both mitigating and aggravating factors.  In mitigation, the panel 
cited respondent’s (1) cooperation in the proceedings and sincere remorse, (2) 
lack of a prior disciplinary record, and (3) lack of selfish or dishonest motive.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (d).  Two aggravating factors were also 
found:  multiple offenses and what the panel termed a “disturbing pattern” of 
misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d). 
{¶ 7} The panel discussed two additional factors in greater detail.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c) lists in mitigation a respondent’s “timely good faith 
effort to make restitution.”  The panel acknowledged that respondent had made 
restitution to both clients but was reluctant to consider it a mitigating factor 
because respondent did not make restitution until disciplinary action had either 
been threatened or initiated. The panel did note, however, that both uncollected 
judgments remained enforceable. 
{¶ 8} The panel also cited BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(h) in noting that 
respondent had implemented changes to her practice to facilitate better case 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
management.  The panel, however, was concerned about the long-term 
effectiveness of these measures.  Respondent, by her own admission, had been 
overwhelmed at times as a solo practitioner but nevertheless desired to return to 
solo practice in the future.  She had also refused help in the past, including offers 
of assistance from the bar association.  The panel questioned “what long term 
network Respondent has in place should she undoubtedly face similar stresses of 
practice in the future.” 
{¶ 9} The panel recommended a one-year suspension, all stayed upon the 
following conditions: (1) that respondent complete 12 hours of CLE in law-office 
management, with instruction to cover office organization, time and task 
management, and basic software aids for case management, (2) that respondent 
submit to a stress-management assessment by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”) and enter into any follow-up contract deemed necessary by 
OLAP, (3) that respondent participate in a two-year mentoring program similar to 
the one previously offered by the Allen County Bar Association, and (4) that 
respondent commit no further misconduct. 
{¶ 10} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact.  It adopted its 
conclusions of law in part, concurring in the panel’s finding that respondent had 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.15(d).  The board also recognized that certain acts 
occurred before February 1, 2007,1 and therefore found violations of DR 6-
101(A)(3) (prohibiting neglect of an entrusted legal matter) and 9-102(B)(1) 
(requiring prompt notice to clients of receipt of funds).  The board adopted the 
panel’s recommended sanction. 
                                                 
1.  Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before 
and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 
supersede the Code of Professional Responsibility. When both the former and current rules are 
cited for the same act, the allegation constitutes a single ethical violation. Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31. 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
{¶ 11} We, in turn, adopt the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommended sanction. 
{¶ 12} The board found Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 96 Ohio St.3d 50, 
2002-Ohio-2987, 770 N.E.2d 1009, to be “representative of the problems 
afflicting Respondent in this case.  Like Sebree, Respondent is facing multiple 
grievances which stemmed from a pattern of neglect, rather than an isolated 
incident.”  We agree that the holding of Sebree should be applied in this case. 
{¶ 13} In Sebree, the respondent mismanaged the cases of two clients.  Id. 
at ¶ 1-5.  His poor office procedures and busy practice manifested themselves in 
his failure to properly respond to client communications and the neglect of the 
matters that the two clients had entrusted to him.  In Sebree and in this case, the 
misconduct was attributable, at least in part, to busy practices, poor office 
management, and the lack of guidance.  Id. at ¶ 6. 
{¶ 14} In Sebree, we agreed with the stipulation of the parties that the 
"complaints looked at individually are not heinous and do not represent 
intentional wrongdoing on the Respondent's part, but are indicative of an overall 
pattern that suggests the Respondent needs assistance, guidance and counseling in 
regard to his time and practice management skills.”  96 Ohio St.3d 50, 2002-
Ohio-2987, 770 N.E.2d 1009, at ¶  6. 
{¶ 15} We ordered a six-month suspension for Sebree, which was stayed 
on the condition “that respondent permit his office practices and management 
skills to be monitored and reviewed * * * for at least one year, that respondent 
attend a seminar on office-management skills, * * * and that respondent receive 
any further education or advice or perform any other acts that [his] monitor 
recommends during the monitoring period.”  Id. at ¶ 9. 
{¶ 16} We have applied Sebree in cases with analogous patterns of 
misconduct, tailoring the conditions of stayed suspensions to address the causes of 
the misconduct. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 17} In Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Poole, the respondent was charged 
with three counts.  120 Ohio St.3d 361, 2008-Ohio-6203, 899 N.E.2d 950, ¶ 4-8.  
Two counts related to respondent taking fees from clients yet failing to perform 
work or return client communications.  The third count addressed Poole’s failure 
to cooperate with the disciplinary process.  Like the respondent in this case, Poole 
did not communicate with clients, neglected entrusted legal matters, and failed to 
return either client’s money until grievances were filed. Id. at ¶ 4, 6.  Citing 
Sebree, we noted that Poole might benefit from counseling or therapy, and we 
stayed his one-year suspension on the conditions that he “(1) consult the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program and comply with any recommendations for 
treatment, (2) complete a one-year monitored probation, * * * (3) comply with all 
of the other requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(9), and (4) commit no further 
misconduct.”  Id. at ¶ 21. 
{¶ 18} In Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sherman, the respondent neglected 
a legal matter, failed to respond to client communications, and failed to maintain 
client funds in a separate, identifiable bank account.  101 Ohio St.3d 158, 2004-
Ohio-340, 803 N.E.2d 398.  Citing Sebree, we suspended Sherman for six 
months, stayed on the condition that he commit no further misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 7. 
{¶ 19} In Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Norton, the respondent neglected two 
clients’ cases, failed to appropriately communicate with his clients, and was 
uncooperative during the disciplinary proceeding.  116 Ohio St.3d 226, 2007-
Ohio-6038, 877 N.E.2d 964, at ¶ 2, 6-11, 13-15.  Norton expressed remorse, had 
no prior disciplinary record, and established his otherwise good character and 
reputation. Id. at ¶ 22.  He explained that “he did not deliberately ignore his 
clients. * * * [H]e had simply ‘bitten off more than he could chew’ while trying to 
practice on his own for the first time. [Norton] described his misconduct as 
careless mistakes and assured that he has since taken steps to improve the way he 
does business.”  Id. at ¶ 20.  Finding Norton’s misconduct primarily attributable 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
to “poor organizational skills in his practice,” we stayed his six-month suspension 
on conditions including the completion of continuing legal education in law-office 
and case-file management and the commission of no further misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 
24-25. 
{¶ 20} Accordingly, consistent with these precedents, respondent is 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, stayed upon the 
following conditions: (1) that respondent complete 12 hours of CLE in law-office 
management, with instruction to cover office organization, time and task 
management, and basic software aids for case management, (2) that respondent 
submit to a stress-management assessment by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”) and enter into any follow-up contract deemed necessary by 
OLAP, (3) that respondent participate in a two-year mentoring program similar to 
the one previously offered by the Allen County Bar Association, with a mentor 
that is mutually satisfactory to respondent and the Allen County Bar Association, 
and (4) that respondent commit no further misconduct. 
{¶ 21} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and OSOWIK, JJ., concur. 
 
THOMAS J. OSOWIK, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for CUPP, J. 
__________________ 
 
Baran, Piper, Tarkowsky, Fitzgerald & Theis Co., L.P.A., and Robert B. 
Fitzgerald, for relator. 
 
Gallagher Sharp, Alan M. Petrov, and Monica A. Sansalone, for 
respondent. 
______________________