Case Title: Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Troy

Citation: 2011-Ohio-4913

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-09-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Troy, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4913.] 
 
 
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-4913 
LAKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. TROY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Troy,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4913.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Multiple violations of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct and refusal to cooperate — Indefinite license suspension. 
(No. 2011-0697 — Submitted June 21, 2011 — Decided September 29, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-018. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Bartley J. Troy of Mentor, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0031600, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1981.  In 
February 2009, we suspended respondent’s license for one year, with six months 
stayed on conditions, for violating three Disciplinary Rules.  Lake Cty. Bar Assn. 
v. Troy, 121 Ohio St.3d 51, 2009-Ohio-502, 901 N.E.2d 809.  His license remains 
suspended for his failure to register with the Office of Attorney Registration for 
the Supreme Court. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} On February 8, 2010, relator, the Lake County Bar Association, 
filed a three-count complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline.  The complaint charged respondent with professional misconduct 
based on his alleged neglect of client matters, failure to provide competent 
representation, failure to keep clients informed about their cases, engaging in 
dishonest conduct, and failing to cooperate with or respond to the resulting 
disciplinary investigations.  In investigating the complaint, counsel for relator 
made at least six attempts to contact respondent and discuss the allegations.  
Respondent did not reply to any of these contacts. 
{¶ 3} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline twice 
attempted to serve respondent with a copy of the complaint by certified mail at the 
address he had registered with the Office of Attorney Registration and a 
subsequent address, but the letter was returned unclaimed.  Therefore, the clerk of 
the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted service on respondent’s behalf on April 12, 
2010, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent again failed to 
respond, and on July 6, 2010, relator filed a motion for default in accordance with 
Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F), supported by affidavits of counsel, affidavits of the three 
affected clients, and other supporting materials. 
{¶ 4} The board referred the motion to a master commissioner, who 
granted the motion, made findings of misconduct, and recommended respondent’s 
indefinite suspension from the practice of law and payment of restitution.  The 
board adopted the master commissioner’s report in its entirety.  We adopt the 
board’s findings of facts and misconduct, order restitution, and indefinitely 
suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 5} In March 2006, Adrienne Merrill engaged respondent in a divorce 
proceeding and paid him a $600 retainer.  Respondent had the parties sign certain 
documents that he was to file, along with documents to establish the paternity of 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
her minor child.  About two years later, respondent asked for and received an 
additional $650 to finalize the proceedings. 
{¶ 6} A few months later, having tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to 
contact the respondent, Merrill learned from the court that legal proceedings had 
not been initiated.  She eventually tracked down respondent, who had moved in 
with his father.  He told her that he had referred the matter to an attorney who 
would complete the case for no charge.  When Merrill contacted this other 
attorney, however, she learned that there had been no referral and that the attorney 
could not handle her case. 
Count Two 
{¶ 7} In February 2007, Kathryn Burke-Rosales retained respondent to 
represent her in a divorce.  She eventually paid him $2,270 in retainers and other 
fees, including a payment to obtain a paternity test.  After receiving this last 
payment, respondent ceased answering the client’s communications.  Burke-
Rosales then discovered that despite the payments, no filings had been made on 
her behalf.  And despite her requests, respondent did not deliver her the results of 
the paternity test that she had paid for. 
Count Three 
{¶ 8} Respondent’s misconduct in the representation that resulted in the 
2009 license suspension spawned a malpractice action against him.  The client, 
Lacraica Barritt, won a judgment for $44,700.  Respondent’s insurer, however, 
advised Barritt’s counsel that it could not pay the claim because respondent had 
not maintained professional liability insurance.  While he had carried a policy in a 
prior year, he had not reported any potential claims during the policy’s effective 
dates.  Respondent had never informed the client that he lacked professional 
liability insurance. 
{¶ 9} The board concluded that the conduct described above violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation), 1.3 
(requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
representing a client), 1.4 (requiring a lawyer to keep a client informed about the 
status of matters for which he or she was engaged), and 8.4(c) (prohibiting 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  The board also 
concluded that respondent violated Gov.Bar R.V(4)(G) by neglecting or refusing 
to assist or testify in a disciplinary investigation.  We agree with the board’s 
findings. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the duties the lawyer violated, the lawyer’s mental 
state, and 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. Because each disciplinary case 
is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take into 
account “all relevant factors” in determining what sanction to impose.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 11} The board recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law.  As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent 
had demonstrated a pattern of misconduct, engaged in multiple offenses, harmed 
vulnerable clients, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, and failed to 
make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i). 
{¶ 12} As to mitigating factors, the board stated that respondent had no 
prior disciplinary record besides an attorney-registration suspension.  As noted 
above, however, that was not the extent of respondent’s disciplinary record; he 
received a one-year suspension in February 2009 for neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter and other misconduct. 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
{¶ 13} The board’s recommended sanction is appropriate in this case.  
“ ‘A lawyer’s neglect of legal matters and failure to cooperate in the ensuing 
disciplinary investigation generally warrant an indefinite suspension from the 
practice of law in Ohio.’ ”  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Kaplan, 124 Ohio St.3d 
278, 2010-Ohio-167, 921 N.E.2d 645, ¶ 15, quoting Akron Bar Assn. v. Goodlet, 
115 Ohio St.3d 7, 2007-Ohio-4271, 873 N.E.2d 815, ¶ 20; Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Troxell, 129 Ohio St.3d 133, 2011-Ohio-3178, 950 N.E.2d 555, ¶ 16.  See also, 
e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v. Van Sickle, 128 Ohio St.3d 376, 2011-Ohio-774, 944 
N.E.2d 677, ¶ 16 (requiring payment of restitution).  The record, the balance of 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and precedent all support the board’s 
recommendation. 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, Bartley J. Troy is indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in the state of Ohio and is ordered to pay restitution.  Within 30 
days, he shall pay restitution as follows: to Adrienne Merrill, $2,000; to Kathryn 
Burke-Rosales, $2,270; and to Lacraica Barritt, $44,700.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
James Koerner, for relator. 
______________________