Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Fletcher

Citation: 2013-Ohio-1510

Docket Number: 2012-1695

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-04-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Fletcher, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1510.] 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-1510 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FLETCHER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Fletcher,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1510.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Practicing law while license under suspension—
Permanent disbarment. 
(No. 2012-1695—Submitted January 23, 2013—Decided April 18, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-071. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Peter F. Fletcher of Northfield, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0030992, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1982.1  
On July 22, 2009, based on findings that Fletcher had misused his client trust 
                                                 
1 Fletcher testified that he is also licensed to practice law in Connecticut, the United States District 
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 
Circuit.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
account and provided financial assistance to a client, we suspended Fletcher’s 
license to practice law in Ohio for six months, but we stayed the entire suspension 
on the conditions that he engage in no further misconduct and complete a one-
year period of monitored probation.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Fletcher, 122 Ohio 
St.3d 390, 2009-Ohio-3480, 911 N.E.2d 897.  Fletcher failed to respond to this 
court’s order that he show cause why he should not be held in contempt for his 
failure to timely pay the costs of that proceeding, and on September 22, 2010, we 
revoked the stay and imposed an actual suspension from the practice of law.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Fletcher, 126 Ohio St.3d 1566, 2010-Ohio-4443, 933 
N.E.2d 1108.  Although Fletcher paid the court costs and accrued interest on 
December 16, 2010, he has failed to file an affidavit of compliance as required by 
the September 2010 order, and he has never filed an application for reinstatement.  
Thus, his suspension remains in effect. 
{¶ 2} In an August 15, 2011 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, 
charged Fletcher with continuing to practice law in two client matters and 
commencing representation in a third matter while his license was suspended.  In 
an April 2012 amendment, relator alleged that Fletcher had undertaken the 
representation of a fourth client while his license was under suspension. 
{¶ 3} Having considered the parties’ stipulations of fact and misconduct, 
the stipulated exhibits, and Fletcher’s testimony at the hearing, a panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended that we 
permanently disbar Fletcher from the practice of law in Ohio.  The board adopted 
the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct, as well as its recommended sanction.  
Because we find that Fletcher has violated this court’s September 22, 2010 order 
suspending his license to practice law by continuing to practice law, by failing to 
notify his clients, opposing counsel, and the courts of his disqualification, and by 
failing to submit an affidavit attesting to his compliance with our order, we adopt 
January Term, 2013 
 
3
the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and permanently disbar Fletcher from 
the practice of law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Although Fletcher’s license to practice law in Ohio has been 
continuously suspended since September 22, 2010, he failed to advise his clients, 
opposing counsel, or the courts of that suspension.  He stipulated that he 
continued to represent two existing clients and began to represent two additional 
clients during that suspension.  He identified himself as an attorney, counseled 
these clients, appeared and represented them in court, and filed documents on 
their behalf from approximately November 2010 through late February 2012. 
{¶ 5} On these facts, the parties stipulated and the board found that 
Fletcher violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in 
a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that 
jurisdiction), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law). 
{¶ 6} The parties also stipulated and the board found that Fletcher had 
falsely advised a client that a hearing had been canceled and instructed her not to 
appear in court.  The client disregarded his instruction and appeared at the hearing 
without counsel, and her spousal-support payments were reduced from $375 to 
$75 per month.  When he was confronted by the client, who had learned of his 
suspension, Fletcher told her that the suspension would be resolved in 30 days.  
But he stopped litigating her case, though he did not formally withdraw from the 
representation for an additional two weeks.  The parties stipulated and the board 
found that Fletcher violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with 
reasonable diligence in representing a client) and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Fletcher also violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a) (prohibiting knowingly making a false 
statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter) by falsely 
testifying at his March 2011 deposition that he had not represented any clients in 
2011, when in fact he had appeared at a plea hearing on behalf of a client in 
juvenile court just days earlier. 
{¶ 7} We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} 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 BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.   
{¶ 9} Aggravating factors stipulated by the parties and found by the 
board include Fletcher’s prior disciplinary offense and his pattern of misconduct 
involving multiple offenses.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), and (d).  In 
mitigation, the parties stipulated and the board agreed that Fletcher timely made 
restitution to the clients affected by his misconduct and exhibited a cooperative 
attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c) 
and (d). 
{¶ 10} The board has noted that disbarment is the presumptive sanction 
for continuing to practice law while under suspension.  See, e.g., Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Sabroff, 123 Ohio St.3d 182, 2009-Ohio-4205, 915 N.E.2d 307, ¶ 21; 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Frazier, 110 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-4481, 853 
N.E.2d 295, ¶ 54; Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison, 98 Ohio St.3d 322, 2003-Ohio-
776, 784 N.E.2d 695, ¶ 12.  While acknowledging that Fletcher cooperated in 
relator’s investigation and made timely restitution to his clients, the board has 
January Term, 2013 
 
5
determined that those mitigating factors do not justify a departure from the 
presumptive sanction.  Fletcher has not objected to the board’s recommendation. 
{¶ 11} Having reviewed the record, including Fletcher’s misconduct as 
well as the aggravating and mitigating factors present in this case, and having 
considered the sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct, we agree with the 
board’s analysis, and we adopt its findings of fact and misconduct as well as its 
recommended sanction. 
{¶ 12} Accordingly, Peter F. Fletcher is permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Fletcher. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’Neill, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Philip A. King, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Peter F. Fletcher, pro se. 
_________________________