Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Herron

Citation: 2007-Ohio-812

Docket Number: 20061939

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-03-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Herron, 112 Ohio St.3d 564, 2007-Ohio-812.] 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. HERRON. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Herron,  
112 Ohio St.3d 564, 2007-Ohio-812.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Commingling—Failure to keep record of client’s 
funds—Failure to promptly pay funds to client—Failure to cooperate in 
disciplinary proceeding—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2006-1939—Submitted November 29, 2006—Decided 
March 14, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-098. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael John Herron of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0068694, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1997.  In 2004, we 
indefinitely suspended respondent for his violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) (barring 
conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(2) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from handling a legal matter without adequate preparation), 
and 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting neglect of an entrusted legal matter), as well as 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring lawyers to cooperate with and assist in any 
disciplinary investigation).  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Herron, 103 Ohio St.3d 
332, 2004-Ohio-4749, 815 N.E.2d 395. 
{¶ 2} On December 5, 2005, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with additional professional misconduct.  
Respondent filed an answer to the complaint, and a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline held a hearing on the complaint in 
June 2006.  The panel then prepared written findings of fact and conclusions of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
law, which the board adopted, as well as a recommendation for a sanction, which 
the board modified. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The panel found that relator failed to present clear and convincing 
evidence to support the allegations of disciplinary violations in Counts II and III 
of the complaint, and the panel therefore dismissed those counts under Gov.Bar 
R. V(6)(H).  We now consider the evidence presented in support of the remaining 
allegations in the complaint. 
Count I 
{¶ 4} Respondent represented Carrie Bijak in a domestic-relations matter 
between 2001 and 2003, and he also represented Bijak in a matter before the 
Cuyahoga County Probate Court in 2003.  In October 2003, respondent told Bijak 
that she owed him a balance of $11,068.75 for the services that he had provided to 
her in those two cases. 
{¶ 5} In November 2003, Bijak received a $14,751.36 check from her 
ex-husband’s pension fund as part of the final settlement of their divorce case.  
Bijak had no checking account, so she endorsed the check and gave it to 
respondent, who deposited the check into his client trust account.  Intending to 
shield his fees from his creditors, respondent did not transfer to his business 
account any amounts representing fees already earned. 
{¶ 6} Beginning that month, respondent made withdrawals from the trust 
account to pay his own bills and expenses.  Those withdrawals were unrelated to 
the legal fees that Bijak owed to respondent, and respondent failed to keep any 
records documenting the identity of the funds in his trust account.  Respondent 
also failed to provide an accounting to Bijak of Bijak’s funds that he withdrew 
from the account. 
{¶ 7} The board found that respondent’s actions violated DR 9-102(A) 
(requiring a lawyer to maintain client funds in a separate, identifiable bank 
January Term, 2007 
3 
account), 9-102(B)(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records and 
render appropriate accounts of clients’ property), and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring a 
lawyer to promptly pay or deliver requested funds in the lawyer’s possession that 
the client is entitled to receive). 
Count IV 
{¶ 8} In July 2004, relator sent letters to respondent by certified and 
regular mail asking him to respond to a grievance filed by Bijak.  Respondent did 
not answer either letter.  Relator sent a third letter to respondent in September 
2004 inquiring about Bijak’s grievance, but again respondent did not reply.  After 
relator served a deposition subpoena on respondent in late September 2004, 
respondent contacted relator and participated in the disciplinary investigation and 
the hearing. 
{¶ 9} The board found that respondent’s actions violated Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G). 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} Relator recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law.  The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely 
suspended, with that suspension to run consecutively to respondent’s earlier 
indefinite suspension.  The board in turn recommended a concurrent indefinite 
suspension.  Respondent has filed no objections to the board’s findings or its 
recommendation. 
{¶ 11} We have reviewed the board’s report and the record, and we find 
that respondent violated all of the provisions as described above.  Although he did 
cooperate with the disciplinary process after relator issued a subpoena to him, 
respondent’s initial two-month-long failure to reply to relator’s inquiries about his 
misconduct was a clear violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
{¶ 12} We also adopt the board’s recommended sanction.  In imposing a 
sanction for attorney misconduct, we consider the aggravating and mitigating 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
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.”).  The aggravating factors in this case include 
respondent’s prior disciplinary offenses, his initial failure to cooperate with the 
disciplinary process, and the harm suffered by his vulnerable client.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (e), and (h). 
{¶ 13} One mitigating factor identified by the board in this case was 
respondent’s remorseful attitude at his disciplinary hearing.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(d).  Respondent testified at his disciplinary hearing that he was “very, 
very sorry” about his handling of the Bijak matter, and he acknowledged 
responsibility for his misconduct and admitted that the allegations in relator’s 
complaint were true. 
{¶ 14} After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, 
we agree with the board that a concurrent indefinite suspension is warranted.  We 
have explained that “[a]n indefinite suspension may be imposed when an attorney 
violates DR 9-102(A) and (B) and does not cooperate in the disciplinary process.”  
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Green, 97 Ohio St.3d 119, 2002-Ohio-5314, 776 N.E.2d 
1060, ¶ 6.  We note that, as the panel explained, “there is no allegation that 
[respondent] misappropriated funds from his client” or that he neglected the 
client’s work.  We therefore agree with the board that disbarment is not 
warranted. 
{¶ 15} We have imposed an indefinite suspension in similar cases.  See, 
e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 381, 2006-Ohio-1194, 843 
N.E.2d 1198 (attorney misused his client trust account, failed to maintain or 
produce adequate account records, and failed to cooperate during a disciplinary 
investigation); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rothermel, 104 Ohio St.3d 413, 2004-
Ohio-6559, 819 N.E.2d 1099 (attorney failed to maintain complete records for the 
funds in his trust account and used client funds for his own personal use). 
January Term, 2007 
5 
{¶ 16} Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law, with the suspension to run concurrently with the indefinite 
suspension that we imposed in Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Herron, 103 Ohio 
St.3d 332, 2004-Ohio-4749, 815 N.E.2d 395.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent and would indefinitely suspend 
respondent with the suspension to run consecutively to the suspension imposed on 
September 22, 2004. 
 
CUPP, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., Christopher Fisher, and Max W. Thomas, for 
relator. 
 
Michael J. Herron, pro se. 
______________________