Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Woodley

Citation: 2012-Ohio-2458

Docket Number: 2011-1768

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-06-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Woodley, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2458.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-2458 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. WOODLEY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Woodley,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2458.] 
Attorney misconduct, including failing to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client, failing to promptly refund any unearned fee upon the 
lawyer’s withdrawal from employment, and knowingly failing to respond 
to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an 
investigation—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2011-1768—Submitted December 7, 2011—Decided June 7, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-005. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Robert Alan Woodley, whose last known address is in 
Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0021660, was admitted to the practice of 
law in Ohio in 1977.  We suspended his license on November 3, 2009, for his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
failure to register for the 2009-2011 biennium, and that suspension remains in 
effect.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Woodley, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 
2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256. 
{¶ 2} On February 14, 2011, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a 
four-count complaint charging Woodley with professional misconduct arising 
from his neglect of several client matters, his failure to reasonably communicate 
with the affected clients or to refund unearned fees, his practicing law while his 
license was suspended, and his knowing failure to respond to the resulting 
disciplinary investigations.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline attempted to serve copies of the complaint on Woodley at the home 
and business addresses on file with the Office of Attorney Services, but one copy 
was returned unclaimed and the other was returned with a notation that Woodley 
had moved and left no forwarding address.  On March 21, 2011, the board served 
the complaint on the Clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(11)(B). 
{¶ 3} Woodley did not answer the complaint, and on August 15, 2011, 
relator moved for default judgment. 
{¶ 4} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline granted relator’s motion, making findings of fact 
and misconduct and recommending that Woodley be indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact 
and misconduct and his recommended sanction.  We adopt the board’s findings 
and indefinitely suspend Woodley from the practice of law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} Woodley’s misconduct arises from his representation of Marvin 
and Sherry Varnes (Count One), Martin Garcia (Count Two), and Graviel Chavez 
(Count Three), and his failure to respond to the resulting disciplinary 
investigations (Count Four). 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
The Varnes Matter 
{¶ 6} The Varneses paid Woodley a $1,250 retainer to initiate 
bankruptcy proceedings on their behalf in August 2008.  Woodley did not return 
the Varneses’ calls, never filed their bankruptcy petition, and did not refund their 
retainer. 
{¶ 7} The master commissioner and the board found that Woodley had 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult with the 
client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished), 
1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the 
client is entitled to receive), and 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly refund 
any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment).  They found, 
however, that there was insufficient evidence to support the charged violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, 
charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee).  Although the 
complaint charged Woodley with violating Prof.Cond.R. 8.4 (prohibiting a lawyer 
from 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, or 
any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 
neither the master commissioner nor the board made any findings with respect to 
the allegation.  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and hereby 
dismiss the charges alleging violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 and 8.4 with respect to 
the Varnes matter. 
The Garcia Matter 
{¶ 8} Garcia retained Woodley in January 2009 to probate his father’s 
estate.  In June 2009, Woodley demanded $500 for attorney fees, though he had 
not obtained approval of those fees from the probate court.  On November 30, 
2009, Woodley wrote to Garcia asking him to provide additional documents and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
another $800 in fees.  But Woodley did not inform Garcia that his license had 
been suspended 27 days earlier.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of 
Woodley, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256.  In December 
2009, the probate court informed Garcia that he would be removed as executor of 
the estate if he did not file an account.  His calls to Woodley were not returned.  
Thereafter, Garcia retained new counsel and successfully moved the court to 
remove Woodley from the case. 
{¶ 9} The master commissioner and board found that Woodley’s conduct 
in the matter violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.5(a), 1.16(e), 5.5(a) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the 
regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law).  They concluded, however, that relator had not proved an alleged 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 (requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients in an 
interest-bearing client trust account, separate from the lawyer’s own property, and 
to maintain certain records regarding client funds entrusted to the lawyer’s care) 
by clear and convincing, sworn or certified evidence as required by Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(F).  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct with respect to the 
Garcia matter and dismiss the charge alleging a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15. 
The Chavez Matter 
{¶ 10} Chavez retained Woodley in August 2008 to represent him in a 
bankruptcy matter and paid him $510, with the understanding that he would be 
billed an additional $649 at the conclusion of the matter.  Woodley never filed a 
bankruptcy petition on Chavez’s behalf.  Chavez retained new counsel in October 
2009 to pursue his bankruptcy.  Woodley then billed him for the $649 remaining 
on the agreed fee and refused to return the $510 that Chavez had already paid. 
{¶ 11} Based upon these facts, the master commissioner and board found 
that Woodley had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.16(e), and 8.4(h).  They 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
found, however, that the alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 and 1.15 had not 
been substantiated with clear and convincing evidence as required by Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(F).  We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct and hereby dismiss the 
charges alleging violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 and 1.15 with respect to the 
Chavez matter. 
Failure to Cooperate in the Disciplinary Investigations 
{¶ 12} In its complaint, relator charged Woodley with a fourth count, 
alleging that he had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) by failing to respond to demands 
for information regarding the foregoing client grievances.  In its motion for 
default judgment, relator alleges that Woodley was notified of the grievances filed 
by the Varneses, Garcia, and Chavez.  The sworn documentary evidence included 
with relator’s motion, including the affidavits of bar counsel and two investigators 
as well as other documents incorporated therein, show that relator sent four letters 
by ordinary mail to Woodley’s registered address, informing him of the various 
grievances filed against him and requesting his response.  The letters were not 
returned, and Woodley did not respond to them. 
{¶ 13} On August 18, 2010, relator sent two identical letters to Woodley 
at his home address advising him of relator’s intent to file a complaint with the 
board; one was sent by regular mail and the other by certified mail.  The letter 
sent by regular mail was not returned, but the certified letter was returned 
unclaimed, with the number “1320” crossed out of the street address and the 
number “1321” handwritten next to it.  And when relator sent the complaint to the 
board, it also sent a courtesy copy of the cover letter and the complaint to 
Woodley.  The letter and complaint were returned marked “moved, left no 
address.” 
{¶ 14} We find that the evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates 
that Woodley violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during 
an investigation). 
Sanction 
{¶ 15} 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.   
{¶ 16} There is no evidence of any mitigating factors in the record.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2).  The evidence submitted with relator’s motion for 
default shows that at least six of the nine aggravating factors set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) are present: (a) a prior disciplinary offense, (c) a pattern of 
misconduct, (d) multiple offenses, (e) lack of cooperation in the disciplinary 
process, (g) refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, (h) the 
vulnerability of and resulting harm to victims of the misconduct, and (i) failure to 
make restitution. 
{¶ 17} Noting that Woodley had committed multiple offenses and that his 
misconduct had resulted in actual prejudice to the affected clients and the 
administration of justice, the master commissioner and board adopted relator’s 
recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension. 
{¶ 18} We have consistently 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.  See, e.g., 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Harris, 108 Ohio St.3d 543, 2006-Ohio-1715, 844 N.E.2d 
1202, ¶ 22; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Judge, 94 Ohio St.3d 331, 332, 763 N.E.2d 
114 (2002); Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder, 87 Ohio St.3d 211, 212, 718 N.E.2d 1271 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
(1999).  We have also routinely imposed indefinite suspensions on attorneys who 
have continued to practice law after their licenses have been suspended for CLE 
and registration violations.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Higgins, 117 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2008-Ohio-1509, 884 N.E.2d 1070; Toledo Bar Assn. v. Crandall, 98 
Ohio St.3d 444, 2003-Ohio-1637, 786 N.E.2d 872; Akron Bar Assn. v. Barron, 85 
Ohio St.3d 167, 707 N.E.2d 850 (1999). 
{¶ 19} Woodley neglected three client matters, failed to reasonably 
communicate with his clients, and failed to return client retainers when he failed 
to perform their work.  He has also continued to practice law while under a 
registration suspension by requesting additional documents and fees from his 
clients without advising them of his ongoing suspension, and he failed to 
cooperate in the investigation of this misconduct.  Having considered the 
aggravating factors, the absence of any mitigating factors, and the sanctions for 
comparable conduct, we conclude that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate 
sanction for Woodley’s conduct. 
{¶ 20} Accordingly, Robert Alan Woodley is indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in the state of Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Woodley. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Michael A. Bonfiglio, Bar Counsel; Marshall & Melhorn, L.L.C., and 
John A. Borell Jr.; and Cubbon & Associates Co., L.P.A., and Kyle Alison 
Cubbon, for relator. 
______________________