Case Title: Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cunningham

Citation: 2008-Ohio-1979

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cunningham, 118 Ohio St.3d 188, 2008-Ohio-1979.] 
 
 
BUTLER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. CUNNINGHAM. 
[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cunningham,  
118 Ohio St.3d 188, 2008-Ohio-1979.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Threatening criminal charges to gain an 
advantage in a civil matter—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2008-0103 — Submitted February 27, 2008 — Decided May 1, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-013. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Lyn Alan Cunningham of Hamilton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0041970, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1989.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
publicly reprimand respondent based on the finding that he violated DR 7-105, 
which prohibits a lawyer from threatening to pursue criminal charges solely to 
obtain an advantage in a civil action.  On review, we adopt the finding that 
respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and agree that a 
public reprimand is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Butler County Bar Association, charged the cited 
misconduct in a five-count complaint, later withdrawing all but the fifth count.  A 
panel of the board heard the case, including the parties’ stipulations, found 
respondent in violation of DR 7-105, and recommended the public reprimand.  
The board adopted the findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In October 2004, respondent agreed to represent a client in 
postdecree domestic-relations proceedings stemming from her 2001 divorce.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Shortly after respondent agreed to the representation, allegations arose suggesting 
that the client’s ex-husband might not have reported to the court assets subject to 
division as marital property, including funds that might have been obtained 
illegally.  Respondent cited these allegations in a January 2005 letter to the ex-
husband, hoping to induce payment of child support, spousal support, health 
insurance, and education expenses on terms favorable to his client. 
{¶ 4} The ex-husband submitted a grievance to relator, alleging that 
respondent had attempted to exert improper influence to gain an advantage for his 
client.  In reply, respondent denied having explicitly or implicitly threatened the 
ex-husband with criminal prosecution, explaining that he had intended instead to 
quickly and quietly resolve the couple’s financial differences without jeopardizing 
the ex-husband’s employment.  The domestic-relations court later granted 
respondent’s motion to vacate his client’s divorce decree, finding that the ex-
husband had defrauded the court. 
{¶ 5} Respondent’s letter presented a list of demands and promised that 
his client would “forgo further proceedings” if the ex-husband agreed to them.  
The letter also promised that respondent’s client would “proceed no further with 
her investigation” if the ex-husband took “advantage of this offer.”  We find that 
his letter constituted a violation of DR 7-105. 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} In determining the appropriate sanction to impose for attorney 
misconduct, “we consider the duties violated, the actual or potential injury caused, 
the attorney’s mental state, the existence of aggravating or mitigating 
circumstances, and sanctions imposed in similar cases.”  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Ake, 111 Ohio St.3d 266, 2006-Ohio-5704, 855 N.E.2d 1206, ¶ 44.  We weigh the 
aggravating and mitigating factors to decide whether circumstances warrant a 
more lenient or harsher disposition.  See Section 10(B) of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
January Term, 2008 
3 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Because 
each disciplinary case involves unique facts and circumstances, we are not limited 
to the factors specified in the rule and may take into account “all relevant factors” 
in determining which sanction to impose.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 7} Respondent concedes without disputing intent that he violated his 
duty under DR 7-105.  As to harm, his letter has created legal problems for his 
client’s ex-husband.  As the panel and board found, however, the harm resulted 
more from the ex-husband’s wrongdoing than from respondent’s promise to 
pursue legal proceedings. 
{¶ 8} In Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 164, 2006-
Ohio-550, 842 N.E.2d 35, we suspended a lawyer’s license for one year, staying 
the last six months on condition of no further misconduct, in part because he 
threatened criminal prosecution to obtain an advantage in a custody dispute, in 
violation of DR 7-105.  That misconduct took on even more troubling 
proportions, however, because the lawyer had also improperly suggested that he 
could influence a public official and had pursued legal action merely to harass or 
maliciously injure another party, in violation of DR 7-102(A)(1) and 9-101(C).  
Because respondent committed only a single infraction, a lesser sanction is 
appropriate.  See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cohen (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 100, 712 
N.E.2d 118 (public reprimand issued for a single violation of DR 7-105). 
{¶ 9} The parties stipulated to mitigating factors that weigh in favor of 
the proposed public reprimand.  Respondent has no prior disciplinary record, did 
not act out of dishonesty or selfishness, and cooperated in the disciplinary 
proceedings.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (d).  He also has a reputation 
for candor, truthfulness, fairness, and professionalism with the bench and bar of 
Butler County and is further credited with being an “effective, diligent, and 
prepared advocate.”  The panel and board found no aggravating factors. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 10} We accept the recommended sanction.  Respondent is hereby 
publicly reprimanded for violating DR 7-105(A).  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Brewer & Cooney and Patricia J. Downing; and Buckley, King & Bluso 
Co., L.P.A., and Stephen J. Brewer, for relator. 
Richard C. Alkire Co., L.P.A., and Richard C. Alkire, for respondent. 
______________________