Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman

Citation: 2008-Ohio-3836

Docket Number: 20080395

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-08-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836.] 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FREEMAN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman,  
119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice — Conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 
law — Failure to maintain client funds in identifiable bank accounts — 
Commingling lawyer and client funds — Failure to cooperate in a 
disciplinary investigation — Partially stayed suspension. 
(No. 2008-0395 – Submitted May 21, 2008 – Decided August 13, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-023. 
____________ 
 
CUPP, J. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Henry R. Freeman of Tallmadge, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0022713, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1981.  Relator, 
Disciplinary Counsel, filed a three-count complaint charging respondent with 
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of 
Professional Conduct.1  Respondent stipulated to the violations set forth in the 
complaint, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline held a hearing.  Based on the stipulations and other evidence, the panel 
made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation, which the 
board adopted. 
                                                 
1.  Because respondent’s misconduct in Count I occurred both prior to and after the adoption of 
the Rules of Professional Conduct on February 1, 2007, relator charged respondent under the 
applicable rule of both the former Code of Professional Responsibility and current Rules of 
Professional Conduct.  We agree with the board, however, that the listing of the former and the 
current rule constitutes only one rule violation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 2} The board recommends that we suspend respondent from the 
practice of law for one year, with the entire suspension stayed on conditions.  We 
adopt the board’s findings of misconduct.  We reject, however, the board’s 
recommended sanction and find instead that respondent should be suspended for 
one year, with six months stayed on conditions. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 3} Respondent has practiced law as a solo practitioner since his 
admission to the bar.  From at least January 1, 2004, through March 24, 2006, 
respondent maintained a client trust account at Fifth Third Bank.  Beginning in 
June or July 2006, respondent maintained a client trust account at First Merit 
Bank.  From 2004 until December 2007, respondent deposited client funds and 
unearned retainers into those client trust accounts.  Respondent admitted that from 
2004 through 2006 he used his client trust accounts as personal checking accounts 
to pay personal bills and as law office operating accounts to pay office bills.  
Respondent stated that he had commingled client and lawyer funds in those 
accounts, that he had overdrawn the trust accounts 14 times during this period, 
and that he had failed to maintain an appropriate accounting of client funds 
deposited into the accounts. 
{¶ 4} The board found that respondent’s actions amounted to violations 
of DR 1-102(A)(5) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (both prohibiting conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), DR 1-102(A)(6) and Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h) (both prohibiting conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law), DR 9-102(A) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (both requiring a lawyer to 
deposit all client funds paid to a lawyer in identifiable bank accounts and barring 
the commingling of lawyer and client funds), and DR 9-102(B)(3) and 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2) and (3) (both requiring a lawyer to maintain complete 
January Term, 2008 
3 
records of client funds in the lawyer’s possession and to render appropriate 
accounts to clients regarding them). 
Count II 
{¶ 5} On March 21, 2006, relator sent a letter of inquiry by certified mail 
to respondent regarding the allegations set forth in Count I.  Respondent received 
the letter and signed the return receipt but failed to respond to the letter.  
Respondent accepted receipt of a second letter of inquiry from relator in April 
2006, but he again failed to respond to the letter. 
{¶ 6} On September 15, 2006, relator personally served respondent with 
a subpoena to appear for a deposition to answer questions regarding the Count I 
allegations.  After the deposition, relator sent a follow-up letter to respondent on 
October 18, 2006, requesting additional information.  Respondent, however, 
failed to respond to that letter. 
{¶ 7} Relator contacted respondent in February 2007 about his lack of 
response to the October 2006 letter.  Pursuant to that discussion, relator re-sent 
the October letter to respondent by e-mail and ordinary mail to respondent’s 
home.  Respondent once again failed to respond. 
{¶ 8} In regard to Count II, the board found that respondent had violated 
DR 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6) and Gov.Bar R.V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate in 
a disciplinary investigation). 
Count III 
{¶ 9} In December 2005, Delores Ellis filed a grievance against 
respondent with the Cleveland Bar Association.  The bar association requested a 
written response to the grievance, but respondent failed to respond. 
{¶ 10} On April 25, 2006, relator sent a letter of inquiry by certified mail 
to respondent’s law office regarding the Ellis grievance.  The post office returned 
the letter as undeliverable and indicated that respondent had moved his office.  On 
May 2, 2006, relator sent a letter of inquiry by certified mail to respondent’s home 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
address.  Respondent signed the return receipt but did not respond to the letter.  
Relator sent a second letter of inquiry to respondent’s home on May 30, 2006, 
which was returned unclaimed.  The second letter of inquiry was re-sent, and 
respondent signed the return receipt, yet he did not respond to relator’s inquiry. 
{¶ 11} On July 6, 2006, relator hand-delivered the second letter of inquiry 
to respondent at his home.  Respondent then requested and was granted two 
extensions of time to respond.  Respondent failed, however, to respond.  In 
September 2006, relator served respondent with a subpoena to appear for a 
deposition regarding the Ellis grievance.  On October 12, 2006, respondent 
attended the deposition and fully answered all questions. 
{¶ 12} Based on respondent’s failure to cooperate in the Ellis grievance, 
the board found that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6) and 
Gov.Bar R.V(4)(G). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 13} In recommending a sanction, the board considered 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.”). 
{¶ 14} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had 
engaged in a pattern of misconduct, had committed multiple offenses, and had 
failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), 
and (e). 
{¶ 15} In mitigation, the board found that respondent had no prior 
disciplinary offenses and that there was no dishonesty or selfish motive.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (b).  The board also found that respondent had entered 
into a three-year contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) 
and has complied with its terms.  Respondent was also diagnosed with 
“adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood,” and the board 
January Term, 2008 
5 
found that respondent’s depression was likely a contributing factor in his initial 
failure to cooperate.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(h). 
{¶ 16} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for one year, with the entire suspension stayed and respondent 
placed on monitored probation on the conditions that respondent (1) extend his 
OLAP contract for at least two years from our court’s order, (2) abide by the 
obligations imposed on him by his OLAP contract, (3) continue his treatment for 
anxiety and depression and provide proof of his treatment and any other medical 
information that may be requested by his OLAP-contract monitor, (4) cooperate 
with relator and a law-practice monitor during his stayed suspension, and (5) 
refrain from any disciplinary violations during his stayed suspension.  The board 
adopted the panel’s recommendation. 
Review 
{¶ 17} Respondent does not challenge the board’s findings of misconduct 
or the recommended sanction.  Relator, however, opposes the board’s 
recommendation for a stay of the entire suspension.  Relator contends that 
respondent’s misconduct and his ongoing medical condition and treatment 
warrant an actual suspension from the practice of law.  Relator urges us to impose 
a one-year suspension of respondent’s license to practice law, with six months 
stayed on conditions. 
{¶ 18} We have reviewed the board’s record and its report, and we agree 
that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 9-102(A), and 9-
102(B)(3), Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d), 8.4(h), 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2), and 1.15(a)(3), and 
Gov.Bar R.V(4)(G).  We disagree, however, that the board’s recommended 
sanction is appropriate. 
{¶ 19} “The mishandling of clients’ funds either by way of conversion, 
commingling, or just poor management, encompasses an area of the gravest 
concern of this court in reviewing claimed attorney misconduct.”  Columbus Bar 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
Assn. v. Thompson (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 667, 669, 23 O.O.3d 541, 433 N.E.2d 
602.  We have previously held that it is “of the utmost importance that attorneys 
maintain their personal and office accounts separate from their clients’ accounts 
and that the violation of that rule warrants a substantial sanction whether or not 
the client has been harmed.”  Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance 
Commt. v. Miles (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 574, 577, 669 N.E.2d 831. 
{¶ 20} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Morgan, 114 Ohio St.3d 179, 2007-
Ohio-3604, 870 N.E.2d 1171, we imposed a two-year suspension with one year 
conditionally stayed on an attorney who had commingled funds in his client trust 
account, had overdrawn the account numerous times, and had failed to cooperate 
in the disciplinary investigation.  In doing so, we noted that a “more stringent 
sanction than a stayed suspension” was warranted for this type of misconduct.  Id. 
at ¶ 11.  And in Disciplinary Counsel v. Grdina, 101 Ohio St.3d 150, 2004-Ohio-
299, 803 N.E.2d 392, we imposed a two-year suspension with one year 
conditionally stayed on an attorney who had paid personal bills out of his client 
trust account, neglected client matters, made a misrepresentation to a client, and 
failed to cooperate in two disciplinary investigations. 
{¶ 21} We 
acknowledge 
that 
the 
above 
cases 
are 
somewhat 
distinguishable from the matter before us.  Unlike the lawyer in Morgan, 
respondent did eventually cooperate in the disciplinary process and did submit 
some mitigating evidence.  And unlike the lawyer in Grdina, respondent’s 
misconduct did not involve client neglect or misrepresentation.  In that regard, 
while we do not find that a fully stayed suspension is appropriate, we do find that 
respondent’s misconduct merits a lesser sanction than those imposed in Morgan 
and Grdina. 
{¶ 22} Moreover, we find that an actual suspension is appropriate here in 
order to adequately protect the public.  Respondent was diagnosed and is 
currently being treated for anxiety and depression.  In addition, it is the opinion of 
January Term, 2008 
7 
respondent’s doctor that respondent’s recovery is incomplete and that he is not yet 
capable of providing legal services to clients beyond routine legal matters.  Thus, 
imposing an actual suspension upon respondent will serve the dual purpose of 
protecting the public and providing respondent with additional time to complete 
his treatment and recovery. 
{¶ 23} Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law for 
one year, with six months stayed, and respondent is placed on probation on the 
conditions set forth in the board’s report.  If respondent violates the conditions of 
the stay, the stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire term of the 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent.2 
Judgment accordingly. 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, and LANZINGER, JJ., 
concur. 
PFEIFER and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent and would suspend respondent for 
one year, all stayed. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Henry R. Freeman, pro se. 
_______________________ 
                                                 
2. We also deny respondent’s request to seal the mitigating factors stated in the board’s report.