Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Paulson

Citation: 2006-Ohio-6678

Docket Number: 20061575

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-12-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Paulson, 112 Ohio St.3d 334, 2006-Ohio-6678.] 
 
 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. PAULSON. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Paulson, 112 Ohio St.3d 334, 2006-Ohio-6678.] 
Attorneys – Misconduct – Multiple violations of Disciplinary Rules – Failure to 
cooperate – One-year suspension, with reinstatement conditioned on proof 
of restitution. 
(No. 2006-1575 – Submitted October 17, 2006 — Decided December 26, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-099. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Steven Lewis Paulson, last known address in 
Twinsburg, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0030044, was admitted to the 
practice of law in Ohio in 1985. 
{¶ 2} On December 5, 2005, relator, Akron Bar Association, charged 
respondent with three counts of professional misconduct.  On January 4, 2006, 
relator served respondent with the complaint by certified mail at his business 
address as on file with the Supreme Court Attorney Registration Section.  
Respondent did not answer, and relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(F).  A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline granted the motion, making findings of misconduct 
and a recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In the fall of 2003, Ramona Bobo and five of her coworkers, Betty 
Harris, Nathan McCall, Glenn Early, Eunice Carrington, and Gerald Shamberger, 
met with respondent to discuss bringing suit against their employer, claiming that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
a certain supervisor had engaged in racial discrimination and sexual harassment 
on the job.  The six coworkers’ decision to consult a lawyer was precipitated by 
Bobo’s receipt, apparently in August 2003, of a “right to sue” letter from the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, allowing the pursuit of an 
employment-discrimination claim against the employer. 
{¶ 4} In September or October 2003, respondent advised the employees 
that he believed they had viable claims that could be brought as a class action.  
Respondent asked for $1,500 to take the case, and his clients chipped in various 
amounts to pay him a total of $1,700. 
{¶ 5} Respondent later informed his clients that he had forwarded a letter 
dated December 10, 2003, to the employer, advising the company about the 
clients’ claims of discrimination. Respondent’s letter demanded a response by 
January 5, 2004.  Respondent sent copies of this letter to some of his clients, 
although most if not all of the clients did not know whether respondent had ever 
actually sent the letter to the employer or how their employer responded, if at all. 
{¶ 6} Respondent had 90 days after Bobo’s receipt of the right-to-sue 
letter to file her discrimination suit.  Section 1601.28(e)(1), Title 29, C.F.R.  
Respondent did not promptly file the action, and the filing deadline may have 
passed even before respondent’s December 10, 2003 letter.  Respondent never 
reported back to his clients, who continued to try to communicate with him, 
leaving telephone messages at his home and office and visiting his office 
repeatedly. 
{¶ 7} In June 2004, respondent’s clients complained about respondent’s 
neglect to the Cleveland Bar Association and also filed suit in the Cuyahoga Falls 
Municipal Court to recover their retainer.  Respondent did not appear in response 
to the civil complaint.  As a result of the court’s order, some of respondent’s 
clients have since recovered their shares of the paid legal fees; others had received 
nothing at the time of their depositions. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 8} In January 2005, the Cleveland Bar Association transferred 
respondent’s case to relator for further investigation.  Relator’s early attempts to 
notify respondent of the grievance by certified mail at a Twinsburg residence and 
an Akron law firm were unsuccessful.  A further attempt was made via certified 
mail to the Cleveland law firm that respondent had listed as his employer with the 
Supreme Court Attorney Registration Section. 
{¶ 9} On May 11, 2005, an investigator personally served respondent 
with a package containing information about the grievance, but respondent did not 
respond.  Other attempts to communicate with respondent included a certified 
letter from relator on July 11, 2005, to advise him of a meeting date to discuss the 
grievance.  Someone at the Twinsburg residence signed the certified mail receipt.  
A different person signed the certified receipt when relator sent notice of its 
completed investigation, notice of intent to file a formal complaint, and a copy of 
the complaint. 
{¶ 10} The master commissioner and the board found that in failing to 
pursue his clients’ claims, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting 
neglect of an entrusted legal matter) and 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
intentionally failing to carry out a contract of professional employment).  Because 
respondent ignored efforts to investigate his misconduct, the master commissioner 
and the board also found a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to 
cooperate in an investigation of alleged misconduct). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 11} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
master commissioner and the board weighed the mitigating and aggravating 
factors of his case.  See 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.”).  Neither the master 
commissioner nor the board found any evidence of mitigating factors. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 12} Adopting the master commissioner’s report, the board noted that 
respondent’s license has been under suspension since December 2, 2005, for 
failure to file a certificate of registration and pay applicable fees by September 1, 
2005, as required by Gov.Bar R. VI.  See In re Atty. Registration Suspension, 107 
Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671.  The board found this to be 
an aggravating factor under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a) (prior disciplinary 
record).  Also in aggravation, the board found that respondent had not cooperated 
in the disciplinary process; had harmed his clients, in one case irreparably, by 
abandoning their cases; and had made no restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(e), (h), and (i). 
{¶ 13} Relator proposed that respondent’s license to practice law be 
suspended for one year.  The master commissioner agreed that a one-year 
suspension was appropriate, and the board recommended this sanction. 
Review 
{¶ 14} We agree that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-
101(A)(2) and Gov.Bar R. V(4).  In determining the appropriate sanction, 
however, we consider an aggravating factor in addition to those already identified 
– the fact that respondent was suspended on November 29, 2006, for having failed 
in 2003 to properly pursue another client’s case and having ignored the ensuing 
disciplinary proceedings.  See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Paulson, 111 Ohio 
St.3d 415, 2006-Ohio-5859, 856 N.E.2d 970 (“Paulson I”). 
{¶ 15} Except for respondent’s previous sanction, this case is similar to 
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Lehotsky, 105 Ohio St.3d 226, 2005-Ohio-1204, 824 
N.E.2d 534.  There, we suspended a lawyer’s license for one year, as 
recommended by the bar association, a master commissioner, and the board, 
because he had neglected to complete wills for a married couple, failed to repay 
the fees the couple had paid, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings, 
January Term, 2006 
5 
and had not properly updated his attorney registration.  Thus, a one-year 
suspension is appropriate in this case. 
{¶ 16} Because of respondent’s repeated instances of neglect, we order 
that this one-year suspension be served after he completes the two-year 
suspension in Paulson I.  Accord Disciplinary Counsel v. Watson, 98 Ohio St.3d 
181, 2002-Ohio-7088, 781 N.E.2d 212 (two-year suspension, with last year stayed 
on condition, ordered to run consecutively to one-year suspension then being 
served pursuant to sanction imposed in previous, unrelated case).  Moreover, as 
we did in Lehotsky, we further order as a condition of respondent’s reinstatement 
to the practice of law that he make complete restitution to his clients. 
{¶ 17} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for one year, with the suspension to commence at the conclusion of the 
sanction imposed in Paulson I.  Upon any request for reinstatement filed pursuant 
to Gov.Bar R. V(10), respondent shall present proof that he has made restitution 
in the amounts paid by each of his six clients, for a total of $1,700, with interest at 
the judgment rate.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and LANZINGER, 
JJ., concur. 
 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. 
__________________ 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
{¶ 18} While I agree with the majority with respect to its findings 
regarding respondent’s violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2) and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4), I do not agree with the sanction imposed. 
{¶ 19} As noted in the majority opinion, respondent’s license to practice 
has been under suspension since December 2, 2005; in this case, he failed to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
cooperate with the disciplinary process, harmed his clients, and failed to pay 
restitution.  I would therefore impose an indefinite suspension. 
 
O’CONNOR, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Zavarello & Davis Co., L.P.A., and Rhonda Gail Davis; Law Office of 
Lee Peterson and Lee Peterson; and Parker, Leiby, Hanna & Rasnick, L.L.C., and 
Thomas M. Parker, for relator. 
______________________