Case Title: Darke Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brumbaugh

Citation: 2000-Ohio-59

Docket Number: 20000759

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Darke Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brumbaugh, 90 Ohio St.3d 248., 2000-Ohio-59] 
 
 
 
DARKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BRUMBAUGH. 
[Cite as Darke Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brumbaugh (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 248.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with entire suspension 
stayed on conditions — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter. 
(No. 00-759 — Submitted July 6, 2000  — Decided October 25, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-53. 
 
On January 20, 2000, relator, Darke County Bar Association, filed an 
amended complaint charging respondent, Philip J. Brumbaugh of Greenville, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0022652, in two separate counts with violating 
the Code of Professional Responsibility.  After respondent answered, the matter 
was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel found that in March 1998, Tina Marie McCreery employed 
respondent to effect a dissolution of her marriage and establish parental rights 
with respect to her children.  McCreery paid respondent $510 for his fee and court 
costs.  Respondent prepared the necessary documents, which McCreery and her 
husband signed in April 1998.  He then advised the McCreerys that a hearing 
would be held in their case on a certain Friday in June 1998.  When the 
McCreerys appeared on the appointed date, court personnel informed them that 
there was no record of the filing of their petition.  The parties stipulated that 
although McCreery contacted respondent’s office several times between April 
1998 and January 1999 to find out the date of the hearing on her petition for 
dissolution, she was never told that the documents had not yet been filed.  In 
January 1999, McCreery filed a grievance about respondent with relator.  In 
February 1999, respondent filed the dissolution papers and returned $350 to 
 
 
2 
McCreery, that being the legal fee portion of the money McCreery had paid to 
him.  The parties stipulated that the court held the final hearing on the McCreery 
dissolution matter in March 1999. 
 
The panel also found that after obtaining a divorce in late 1997, Deborah 
L. Edwards retained respondent to file a motion for contempt against her former 
spouse for failure to abide by the terms of the separation agreement.  Between 
March 1998 and May 1999, Edwards had numerous contacts with respondent, 
who led her to believe that the motion for contempt had been filed.  Respondent 
even advised Edwards that a hearing on the motion had been scheduled in June 
1998 and then that the hearing had been postponed.  Respondent finally filed the 
appropriate papers in March 1999 and the court held a hearing on the matter in 
June 1999.  As a result of the hearing, respondent was to prepare a journal entry 
within thirty days.  Respondent did not prepare the entry. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct in the McCreery matter 
and in the Edwards matter constituted two separate violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter).  In mitigation, the panel 
noted respondent’s considerable contributions to the community and the fact that 
he had been diagnosed with major depression, for which he has sought treatment.  
The panel then considered the fact that respondent had previously been 
disciplined by this court.  Darke Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brumbaugh (1992), 65 Ohio 
St.3d 151, 602 N.E.2d 606.  It recommended that respondent be suspended from 
the practice of law for two years, with the suspension stayed on condition that 
respondent continue his treatment for major depression and that the attending 
physician report every three months to the relator, indicating respondent’s 
progress and need, if any, for further treatment.  The panel further specified that 
the stay will be revoked if, during the two-year suspension period, any complaint 
is filed against respondent that passes probable cause review by relator. 
 
 
3 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jeffrey L. Amick and Eric H. Brand, for relator. 
 
William R. Zimmerman, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 
two years, with the entire two-year suspension stayed, provided that respondent 
continue his treatment for major depression and that the attending physician 
report every three months to the relator, indicating  respondent’s progress and 
need, if any, for further treatment.  Furthermore, the suspension is stayed on the 
condition that during the two-year suspension period, no complaint is filed against 
respondent that passes probable cause review by relator.  Costs of these 
proceedings are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.