Case Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gottehrer

Citation: 2010-Ohio-929

Docket Number: 20091918

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-03-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gottehrer, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-929.] 
 
 
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-929 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. GOTTEHRER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gottehrer,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-929.] 
Attorney misconduct, including neglecting entrusted legal matters, charging a 
clearly excessive fee, failing to promptly deliver funds or other property to 
a client, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation — 
Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2009-1918 — Submitted December 16, 2009 — Decided March 17, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-086. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Blaine L. Gottehrer of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0027147, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
November 1980.  In December 2008, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar 
Association, filed a complaint charging respondent with violations of the Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Rules of Professional Conduct and the Supreme Court Rules for the Government 
of the Bar.  Although the complaint was served upon respondent by certified mail 
at his office address on December 10, 2008, he failed to file an answer.  
Therefore, in June 2009, relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(F). 
{¶ 2} The board referred the motion to a master commissioner, who 
prepared a report for the board’s review.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings, including that the materials offered in support of the 
motion for default were sufficient, and his conclusions that respondent had 
violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and five of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 
{¶ 3} In accordance with the master commissioner’s report, the board 
recommends that this court indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice 
law based upon its findings that respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness in representing two clients; failed to comply as soon as 
practicable with reasonable requests for information from a client; failed to keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a legal matter; entered agreements 
for, charged, or collected an illegal or clearly excessive fees; failed to promptly 
deliver funds or other property to a client; and failed to cooperate in the 
investigation of three disciplinary matters.  We agree that respondent committed 
professional misconduct as found by the board and that his conduct warrants an 
indefinite suspension. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} In support of its motion for default judgment, relator submitted the 
affidavits of grievants Linda Wurst and John Kaminski and of investigator 
Heather Zirke, as well as a copy of the grievance filed by Sharon M. Fleming, and 
a number of documents detailing relator’s efforts to correspond with respondent 
and Fleming. 
The Wurst Grievance 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
{¶ 5} The affidavit of Linda Wurst demonstrates that in March 2007, 
Wurst paid respondent a retainer of $1,500 to assist her in obtaining custody of 
her granddaughter, who was then living in Germany.  Respondent totally 
neglected his client’s case:  he did not perform the requested service, did not 
respond to his client’s phone calls or e-mails, did not appear at the May 17, 2007 
custody hearing or  respond to his client’s repeated requests for a refund of her 
retainer.  As of May 16, 2009, the date of Wurst’s affidavit, respondent had not 
returned the retainer.  Although Wurst finally did obtain custody of her 
granddaughter, respondent’s actions caused her financial and emotional hardship. 
{¶ 6} With respect to the Wurst matter, the board determined that 
respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness in representing a client), 1.4(a)(4) (a lawyer shall comply as soon 
as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client), 1.5 (a 
lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly 
excessive fee), and 1.15(d) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third 
person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to 
receive). 
The Kaminski Grievance 
{¶ 7} The affidavit of John Kaminski demonstrates that on February 12, 
2007, Kaminski paid respondent a $2,000 retainer to appeal a ruling regarding his 
child-support obligations.  Although respondent filed a timely notice of appeal, he 
failed to cause the trial court record, including the transcript, to be filed with the 
court of appeals.  As a result, the appellate court dismissed the appeal sua sponte.  
Respondent failed to notify Kaminski of the dismissal and ignored his request for 
a refund of the retainer. 
{¶ 8} With respect to the Kaminski grievance, the board determined that 
respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3) (a lawyer shall keep his clients 
reasonably informed about the status of their matters, and 1.5. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
The Fleming Grievance 
{¶ 9} In December 2007, relator received a grievance from Sharon 
Fleming against respondent arising from his representation in a child-support-
enforcement matter.  The board noted that Fleming did not cooperate with relator 
by signing an affidavit in support of her allegations and concluded that the 
allegations contained in her unsworn grievance were insufficient to support the 
alleged misconduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b) (a motion for default shall 
contain sworn or certified documentary prima facie evidence in support of the 
allegations made). 
Failure to Cooperate 
{¶ 10} In December 2007, relator sent respondent a certified letter 
requesting his written response to Fleming’s grievance, but never received the 
return receipt to document its delivery and never received a response from 
respondent.  Nor did relator receive a response to a second letter sent via regular 
mail. 
{¶ 11} Then, in April 2008, relator sent two letters to respondent at his 
business address requesting a written response regarding Wurst’s grievance—a 
certified letter, which was signed for on April 7, 2008, and a letter sent by regular 
mail on April 22, 2008.  Respondent never provided a written response to Wurst’s 
complaint. 
{¶ 12} Similarly, in June 2008, relator sent respondent a letter via certified 
mail requesting a written response to Kaminski’s grievance.  When the receipt for 
that letter was returned unsigned, relator sent a second letter via regular mail that 
was not returned.  Once again, respondent failed to respond to the grievance. 
{¶ 13} In each of these three grievances, the board found that respondent 
had violated  Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or 
testify in an investigation or hearing) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (no attorney shall 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
fail to disclose a material fact or knowingly fail to respond to a demand for 
information from a disciplinary authority). 
Sanction 
{¶ 14} 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.   
{¶ 15} The board determined that the following aggravating factors were 
involved here:  dishonest or selfish motive; a pattern of misconduct; multiple 
offenses; lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process; resulting harm to the 
victims of the misconduct; and failure to make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (h), and (i).  In mitigation, the board found that 
respondent has no prior disciplinary record.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  
Having weighed these factors, the board recommends that we indefinitely suspend 
respondent from the practice of law. 
{¶ 16} We have recognized that “ ‘[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; see also Disciplinary Counsel v. Gosling, 114 Ohio St.3d 474, 
2007-Ohio-4267, 873 N.E.2d 282, ¶ 12; Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wagner, 113 
Ohio St.3d 158, 2007-Ohio-1253, 863 N.E.2d 164, ¶ 13-14. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 17} Here, the record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence 
that respondent neglected client matters, failed to promptly comply with 
reasonable client requests for information, made agreements for, charged, or 
collected illegal or clearly excessive fees, failed to timely deliver funds or other 
property to a client, and failed to cooperate in a disciplinary proceeding, thereby 
violating Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3) and (4), 1.5, 
1.15(d), and 8.1(b). 
{¶ 18} Having weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors and having 
considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, we adopt the board’s 
recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension.  Accordingly, Blaine L. 
Gottehrer is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of 
Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Liffman Co., L.P.A., Daniel M. Singerman, 
and Richard A. Rabb, for relator. 
______________________