Case Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sayler

Citation: 2010-Ohio-1810

Docket Number: 20082381

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-04-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sayler, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1810.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-1810 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. SAYLER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sayler, Slip Opinion No. 2010-
Ohio-1810.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules, 
the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Rules for the Government of 
the Bar — Indefinite license suspension. 
(No. 2008-2381 — Submitted January 26, 2010 — Decided April 29, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-073. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, John L. Sayler of Lakewood, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0025452, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1981.  In 
November 2002, we suspended respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for 
six months, with the entire suspension stayed upon the condition that he commit 
no further violation of the Disciplinary Rules, for failing to keep his clients’ funds 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
in an identifiable bank account and failing to appropriately account for those 
funds.  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sayler, 97 Ohio St.3d 239, 2002-Ohio-5936, 
778 N.E.2d 571.  On May 16, 2006, we suspended respondent from the practice 
of law in Ohio for failing to comply with the continuing legal education (“CLE”) 
requirements of Gov.Bar R. X.  In re Report of the Continuing Legal Edn. Comm., 
109 Ohio St.3d 1464, 2006-Ohio-2403, 847 N.E.2d 443.  Respondent has not 
been reinstated to the practice of law since the latter suspension and has not paid 
the sanctions imposed against him.  He is currently listed as being on inactive 
status. 
{¶ 2} In this case, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice 
of law in Ohio based on its findings that he committed various disciplinary 
violations, including continuing to practice law while under suspension, failing to 
inform clients that he did not maintain professional liability insurance, neglecting 
an entrusted legal matter, and failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation.  
We accept the board’s findings of misconduct and agree that an indefinite 
suspension of his license to practice is appropriate. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, filed a three-
count complaint charging respondent with violations of the Disciplinary Rules, 
the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Rules for the Government of the Bar.  
Respondent was served with a copy of the complaint but did not answer, and 
relator moved for default.  The board referred the default motion to a master 
commissioner pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(2), who prepared a report for the 
board’s review.  In December 2008, the board adopted the findings of fact, the 
conclusions of law, and the recommendation of the master commissioner and 
recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. 
{¶ 4} Respondent filed objections to the board’s findings of fact and 
recommendation in January 2009.  In his objections, respondent noted that he 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
“has a history of depression for which he has been under medical care for some 
14 years, of which relator is aware, and while there has been no affect on his 
practice of law, there has been an inability to face and answer to these disciplinary 
proceedings.”  In response, relator filed a motion to remand the case to the board 
“to consider what effects, if any, Respondent’s mental illness may have on his 
ability to practice law.”  We granted relator’s motion and remanded the matter to 
the board for further proceedings.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sayler, 121 
Ohio St.3d 1416, 2009-Ohio-1076, 902 N.E.2d 995. 
{¶ 5} Relator then filed an amended three-count complaint charging 
respondent with violations of the Disciplinary Rules, the Rules of Professional 
Conduct, and the Rules for the Government of the Bar, and respondent answered.  
A hearing was held before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline, and the parties had also stipulated to certain facts and misconduct.  
Relator recommends that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice 
of law, and respondent requests a lesser sanction. 
{¶ 6} The panel found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent 
had committed misconduct and recommended that he be indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio, and the board adopted the panel’s findings of 
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation.  The parties have not objected to 
the board’s report and recommendation. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 7} In October 2006, respondent was paid $500 to represent a client in 
a divorce case.  Respondent had been suspended from the practice of law since 
the previous May, but did not inform his client about the suspension or that he did 
not have professional liability insurance. 
{¶ 8} In January 2007, respondent filed an answer on behalf of the client 
in the divorce case.  For three months, the client attempted to contact respondent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
at least a half-dozen times, but respondent did not answer the client’s messages.  
In April 2007, two months after respondent claimed that he first learned about his 
suspension, he filed a notice of withdrawal as counsel.  The case was scheduled 
for trial the next day.  Later, the client learned from his ex-wife that they had been 
divorced. 
{¶ 9} We agree with the board that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-
104(A) (requiring a lawyer to disclose to the client that the lawyer lacks 
professional liability insurance) and 3-101(B) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of the 
regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction), as well as Prof.Cond.R. 
1.4(a)(3)1 (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as 
practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client), and 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Count II 
{¶ 10} In 2005, a client paid respondent $200 towards a total fee of $500 
for representation in a divorce.  Respondent did not inform the client that he did 
not have professional liability insurance. 
{¶ 11} In May 2006, respondent filed a complaint for divorce on behalf of 
the client.  The client’s wife filed an answer that was sent to respondent by 
certified mail, but he did not sign for it.  During his representation, respondent did 
not notify the client of his wife’s filing of a motion for temporary support.  
Respondent did not attend a hearing on the motion, and in April 2007, he 
withdrew from the case.  Respondent told the client that he was dropping the case 
                                                 
1 Relator charged respondent with misconduct under the applicable rules for acts occurring before 
and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 
supersede the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
because he had other obligations.  He did not inform the client that his license to 
practice law had been suspended. 
{¶ 12} We agree with the board that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-
104(A) and 6-101(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter). 
Count III 
{¶ 13} On April 13, 2007, although relator sent respondent a letter by 
certified mail requesting his written response to the allegations contained in the 
grievance by the client in Count II, respondent did not sign for the letter.  A 
second letter was sent by regular mail requesting a response to the grievance by 
May 14, 2007, but respondent did not submit one, despite being granted an 
extension until May 28, 2007, to do so.  At the hearing, respondent testified that 
he did not respond because “[a]t that point [he] wanted to just basically wash [his] 
hands of it and take a break.” 
{¶ 14} We agree with the board that respondent’s conduct violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to assist in a disciplinary investigation) 
and V(6)(A)(1) (defining misconduct to include any violation of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct), as well as Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information from a disciplinary 
authority). 
Sanction 
{¶ 15} In determining the appropriate sanction, the board found the 
following aggravating factors:  respondent’s previous disciplinary offenses and 
current CLE suspension, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and failure to 
cooperate in the disciplinary process.  See the Rules and Regulations Governing 
Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”) 10(B)(1)(a), (c), (d), and (e).  No 
mitigating factors are present.  In particular, at the hearing before the board, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
respondent admitted that he was not relying on any claimed medical or mental 
deficiency to mitigate his misconduct: 
{¶ 16} “I am not coming before this Board and pleading any medical or 
mental deficiency as I had in the prior case.  I believe these are my responsibilities 
and I will address them.  I am under medication for depression.  I believe it 
controls my depression and I want to leave it at that.” 
{¶ 17} In a comparable case in which an attorney continued to practice 
law while on suspension for failing to comply with CLE requirements, we held 
that “[w]hen lawyers continue to practice law despite the suspension of their 
licenses and then fail to cooperate in investigations of that misconduct, an 
indefinite suspension is warranted.”  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Higgins, 117 
Ohio St.3d 473, 2008-Ohio-1509, 884 N.E.2d 1070, ¶ 15, and cases cited therein.  
Moreover, respondent’s neglect of an entrusted legal matter and failure to 
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation generally warrant an indefinite 
suspension.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269, 2010-Ohio-136, 
921 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 10.  As in Higgins, no mitigating evidence has been adduced to 
require “a less exacting sanction.”  Id. at ¶ 15.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
PFEIFER, 
ACTING 
C.J., 
and 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
The late CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS J. MOYER did not participate in the 
decision in this case. 
__________________ 
 
K. Ann Zimmerman and Heather M. Zirke, for relator. 
 
John L. Sayler, pro se. 
__________________