Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Sterling

Citation: 1998-Ohio-302

Docket Number: 19981709

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. STERLING. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Sterling (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Forging client’s 
signature on an affidavit and notarizing it — Handling a legal matter that 
attorney knows or should have known he is not competent to handle — 
Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failing to carry out contract of 
employment — Prejudicing or damaging client during course of 
professional relationship — Handling a legal matter without adequate 
preparation — Practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so would violate 
the regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction — Practicing law while 
under suspension. 
(No. 98-1709 — Submitted September 29, 1998 — Decided December 30, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-59. 
 
In November 1975, respondent, Howard Thomas Sterling of University 
Heights, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0034274, was admitted to the practice of 
law in Ohio.  In March 1994, we suspended respondent from the practice of law 
for two years because he had violated several provisions of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Sterling (1994), 68 Ohio 
St.3d 528, 629 N.E.2d 400.  We stayed the final eighteen months of the 
suspension, with respondent to be placed on monitored probation under certain 
conditions.  We also suspended respondent from the practice of law and imposed 
sanctions upon him in May 1994 for his noncompliance with the continuing legal 
education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X.  69 Ohio St.3d 1457, 634 N.E.2d 219. 
 
In June 1997, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a three-count 
complaint charging respondent with violating various Disciplinary Rules and one 
 
2
of the Rules for the Government of the Bar.  After respondent filed an answer 
admitting most of the complaint’s factual allegations, a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) 
heard the matter. 
 
The panel found that respondent represented Olga Bryant, the plaintiff in an 
employment discrimination case in a federal district court in Pennsylvania. In 
opposing a dismissal motion, respondent filed a brief and an affidavit, which 
purported to be signed by Bryant.  At the hearing on the dismissal motion, 
respondent admitted that, although certain of the statements in the affidavit were 
not true, he forged his client’s signature on the affidavit and then notarized it.  
According to respondent, because he had to file the brief and affidavit in a short 
period of time, he drafted the affidavit based on his notes from conversations with 
Bryant, and he did not intend to defraud either the court or his client by filing the 
affidavit. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct in the employment 
discrimination case violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in any 
other conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law). 
 
The panel further found that in December 1987, Charlotte Whiting hired 
respondent under a contingent-fee agreement to prosecute a wrongful death action 
on behalf of the estate of her mother and paid him $450 to cover deposition costs.  
After several months passed without being advised of the status of her case, 
Whiting repeatedly telephoned respondent’s office, but she received no reply.  
Whiting eventually was able to speak with respondent only when she posed as a 
new client.  During that conversation, respondent assured her that he had filed a 
 
3
complaint in her case in both Erie and Crawford Counties in Pennsylvania.  
Whiting then contacted the clerk’s offices in those counties and was advised that 
no such complaint had been filed.  After several more unsuccessful attempts by 
Whiting to contact respondent, respondent then advised her that he would file the 
complaint. 
 
In June 1989, respondent filed the complaint for Whiting in Erie and 
Crawford Counties in Pennsylvania, but never perfected service of the complaint, 
as required under Pennsylvania procedural rules.  Respondent claimed that he had 
forgotten the Pennsylvania requirements concerning perfection of service. A 
Pennsylvania attorney subsequently informed Whiting that the complaint had not 
been served and that she had no genuine likelihood of prevailing in the suit. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct in the Pennsylvania case 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 6-101(A)(1) (handling a legal matter that 
he knows or should know that he is not competent to handle, without associating 
with him a lawyer who is competent to handle it), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal 
matter entrusted to him), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of 
employment entered into with a client for professional services), and 7-101(A)(3) 
(prejudicing or damaging his client during the course of the professional 
relationship). 
 
The panel additionally found that in September 1991, Linda Williams 
retained respondent to represent her in the purchase of property located in 
Cleveland.  Lester Collins, the owner of the property, resided in a nursing home, 
and respondent was to prepare a deed and check with the probate court to 
determine whether Collins was under a guardianship.  After respondent assured 
Williams that Collins was not under a guardianship, Williams paid off the existing 
 
4
mortgage and obtained possession of the property.  She then made substantial 
improvements to the premises and used it as a rental property. 
 
After Collins died, his estate brought a legal action against Williams for 
concealment of assets.  Collins had actually been under a guardianship at the time 
of the sale and did not have the capacity to sell the property.  Respondent claimed 
that he had relied on erroneous information from the probate court clerk’s office to 
conclude that Collins was not under a guardianship when he advised Williams.  
Although he realized that he was under suspension, respondent represented 
Williams in the ensuing probate court litigation.  Williams discharged him in 
September 1995. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct in the probate matter 
violated DR 6-101(A)(2) (handling a legal matter without adequate preparation), 
3-101(B) (practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so would violate the 
regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction), and Gov.Bar R. V(8) (practicing 
law while under suspension). 
 
In mitigation, relator’s counsel noted that respondent is a Vietnam War 
veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, that he had battled 
alcoholism, and that he had gone through a divorce.  As part of the court’s 
previous suspension, respondent entered into the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program, Inc. (“OLAP”) in May 1994 to treat his alcohol dependence and 
emotional problems.  Relator found that Sterling had fully complied with the 
court’s previous conditions of the 1994 Gov.Bar R. V suspension.  He also 
obtained over ninety hours of CLE credit in the year before the panel hearing.  
Relator’s counsel advised the panel that respondent had been a respected 
adversary for over twenty years and that respondent had fully cooperated with 
relator in the disciplinary proceeding.  Relator informed the panel that an 
 
5
indefinite suspension would be an appropriate sanction.  The panel agreed with 
relator, noted that respondent “could be a credit to the profession,” and 
recommended an indefinite suspension from the practice of law. 
 
The board adopted the panel’s findings, and recommended that respondent 
be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and that he comply with OLAP 
requirements as a condition for his reinstatement. 
__________________ 
 
Hennenberg & Brown and Michael C. Hennenberg; and James Flaherty, for 
relator. 
 
Howard T. Sterling, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Upon review of the record, we adopt the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the board.  We hereby indefinitely suspend 
respondent from the practice of law in Ohio and order that he comply with OLAP 
requirements as a condition of his reinstatement.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.