Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Moore

Citation: 2019-Ohio-2063

Docket Number: 2018-1758

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2019-05-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Moore, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-2063.] 
 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-2063 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. MOORE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Moore, Slip Opinion No.  
2019-Ohio-2063.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Permanent disbarment. 
(No. 2018-1758—Submitted January 30, 2019—Decided May 30, 2019.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2017-035. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Rodger William Moore, of Alexandria, Kentucky, 
Attorney Registration No. 0074144, was admitted to the practice of law in 2001.  
On June 25, 2015, we suspended him from the practice of law for two years, with 
the second year stayed on conditions, based on findings that he engaged in illegal 
activities that adversely reflected on his honesty and trustworthiness and knowingly 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
made false statements of material fact during the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Moore, 143 Ohio St.3d 252, 2015-Ohio-2488, 36 N.E.3d 
171.  On October 19, 2016, we found Moore in contempt for continuing to practice 
law while his license was under suspension, revoked the stay, and ordered him to 
serve the entire two-year suspension.  See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Moore, 147 Ohio 
St.3d 1405, 2016-Ohio-7371, 60 N.E.3d 1269.  In addition, on January 25, 2019, 
we imposed an interim default suspension on Moore after the Board of Professional 
Conduct certified that he failed to answer a separate disciplinary complaint alleging 
that he continued to practice law while his license was under suspension.  
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Moore, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2019-Ohio-215, __ N.E.3d __.  
Both of these suspensions remain in effect. 
{¶ 2} In August 2017, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged Moore 
with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his 
efforts to charge and collect a clearly excessive fee after he told his client that he 
would represent her free of charge.  Although Moore answered relator’s complaint 
and was deposed, he did not appear at his disciplinary hearing before a panel of the 
board.  Approximately six months after that hearing—but before the board issued 
its report and recommendation—Moore applied to retire or resign from the practice 
of law, but we denied his application.  In re Resignation of Moore, 153 Ohio St.3d 
1498, 2018-Ohio-4159, 108 N.E.3d 1106. 
{¶ 3} After considering the testimony of the affected client and two 
additional witnesses, as well as 31 exhibits propounded by relator, the panel found 
that Moore charged a clearly excessive fee, engaged in dishonest conduct in his 
efforts to collect that fee, and engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the 
administration of justice.  Citing Moore’s history of dishonest conduct and his 
willingness to engage in fraud and deception to obtain a personal financial 
advantage at the expense of a vulnerable client, the panel recommended that we 
permanently disbar him from the practice of law in Ohio.  The board adopted the 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction, and no 
objections have been filed. 
{¶ 4} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of 
misconduct and permanently disbar Moore from the practice of law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} In late 2014, Shannon Marshall was a party to a divorce proceeding.  
Marshall qualified for legal aid, and an attorney was assigned to represent her.  
After Marshall expressed concerns about that attorney’s ability to handle her case, 
a friend suggested that she speak with Moore and indicated that Moore would 
handle the case for free.  Marshall contacted Moore. 
{¶ 6} On December 8, 2014, Moore sent Marshall an e-mail stating that he 
would file a substitution of counsel in her divorce proceeding.  He instructed 
Marshall to let her legal-aid attorney know that another attorney to whom her friend 
had referred her had “volunteered to take [her] case at no charge.”  Moore also sent 
a separate e-mail directly to the legal-aid attorney and Marshall, stating, “I am a 
friend and counsel to a close friend of Shannon’s, and I have agreed to represent 
her at no charge.”  During the disciplinary hearing, Marshall testified that she was 
aware that if she retained a private attorney, legal aid would not continue to 
represent her.  She stated that she would not have switched attorneys if Moore had 
not agreed to represent her for free. 
{¶ 7} Apart from Moore’s e-mails stating that he would represent Marshall 
at no charge, he did not provide her with a fee agreement or any other documents 
indicating whether he intended to charge her fees for his services.  But less than 
four weeks after Moore commenced the representation, Marshall received an 
invoice for $9,500.  Marshall testified that Moore explained to her that while he did 
not expect her to pay the invoice, he intended to seek an award of legal fees from 
her husband in the divorce proceedings.  However, Moore never submitted any 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
invoices to the court or requested that his fees be assessed against Marshall’s 
husband. 
{¶ 8} According to Marshall, Moore began to complain that her case “was 
a lot of work.”  On April 20, 2015, he e-mailed her an $11,000 promissory note and 
requested that she sign it.  Destitute and desperate to maintain Moore’s 
representation, Marshall agreed that she would pay Moore over time in accordance 
with the promissory note—though she could not recall whether she signed it or just 
verbally agreed to its terms.  She testified that with the divorce still pending, she 
would have done anything to protect herself and her young son. 
{¶ 9} On June 26, 2015—just one day after we suspended Moore from the 
practice of law—Moore went to the courthouse for a hearing in Marshall’s case.  
According to Marshall, as she and Moore were riding the elevator at the courthouse, 
he informed her that he had just been suspended and that he did not know whether 
he would be able to represent her at the hearing and then said, “[B]ut we’re going 
to try.”  However, at the outset of the hearing, the presiding magistrate noted that 
Moore had been suspended and instructed him to leave the courtroom.  The 
magistrate ultimately continued the hearing to permit Marshall to find alternative 
representation. 
{¶ 10} Thereafter, Moore suggested to Marshall that Andrew Green, an 
attorney with whom he shared office space, could assume Marshall’s representation 
and that Moore could assist him.  With no funds to secure other counsel, Marshall 
agreed.  Green did not provide a fee agreement or discuss fees with Marshall, and 
Marshall believed that Moore was paying Green for his services.  When deposed, 
however, Green testified that he did not expect any fee for his services.  He 
explained that he undertook the representation at no charge with the understanding 
that he would be compensated for his work in several other cases that Moore was 
transferring to him.  He also suggested that the representation was a way for him to 
January Term, 2019 
 
5
help out one of Moore’s friends and to compensate Moore for sharing his office 
space. 
{¶ 11} Green’s representation ended after the trial of Marshall’s divorce in 
September 2015.  In September 2016, Green filed a breach-of-contract action 
against Marshall on behalf of “Law Offices of Rodger W. Moore, LLC.”  Based on 
information provided by Moore, the complaint falsely alleged that Marshall had 
agreed to Moore’s billing rate of $225 an hour and asserted a claim based on the 
promissory note that Moore presented to Marshall—even though the complaint 
alleged that Marshall had never signed the note.  The complaint also alleged that 
Moore had made multiple requests for payment of his fee and that Marshall had 
refused to respond, but Marshall testified that she had not received any such 
demands.  The complaint requested both compensatory and punitive damages, each 
in excess of $25,000, without identifying any factual or legal basis to support 
Moore’s claims, and Marshall was forced to hire an attorney to defend against the 
complaint.  The trial court eventually dismissed Moore’s complaint without 
prejudice after he filed a pro se motion purporting to substitute himself for the 
original plaintiff (“Law Offices of Rodger W. Moore, LLC”) as the real party in 
interest. 
{¶ 12} The board found that by agreeing to represent Marshall for free and 
then demanding that she sign a promissory note obligating her to pay him for his 
representation, Moore charged a clearly excessive fee in 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).  The board also found that he violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) by using a “bait and switch” tactic 
and by knowingly making false allegations of fact in the complaint he filed against 
Marshall.  And finally, the board determined that Moore’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
prejudicial to the administration of justice), noting that the false and frivolous 
claims he asserted in his complaint caused Marshall to hire an attorney to defend 
herself and wasted court resources.1 
{¶ 13} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 14} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 15} As aggravating factors, the board found that Moore has a prior 
disciplinary record, acted with a dishonest and selfish motive, engaged in a pattern 
of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, and caused harm to his client who was 
extremely vulnerable due to her financial status, the loss of her legal-aid attorney, 
and the circumstances of her divorce proceeding.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1), (2), 
(3), (4), and (8).  It also determined that no mitigating factors are present.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C). 
{¶ 16} The board noted that in his initial disciplinary case, Moore engaged 
in criminal conduct involving fraud and misrepresentation and that in this case, he 
has demonstrated his willingness to harm a vulnerable client to obtain personal 
financial advantage.  Indeed, Moore persuaded Marshall to irrevocably terminate 
the representation of her legal-aid attorney with the promise that he would represent 
her for free.  Once she was entirely at his mercy, Moore demanded that she pay him 
for the same services he had agreed to provide for free.  And after Marshall failed 
to remit payment, Moore filed suit and asserted false and frivolous claims against 
her.  Moore’s failure to attend the hearing in this case and his subsequent attempt 
                                                 
1. The hearing panel unanimously dismissed three other alleged rule violations based on the 
insufficiency of the evidence.  See Gov.Bar R. V(12)(G). 
January Term, 2019 
 
7
to surrender his license convinced the board that he has no intention of correcting 
his behavior or returning to the practice of law. 
{¶ 17} We have consistently observed that “in determining the appropriate 
length of the suspension and any attendant conditions, we must recognize that the 
primary purpose of disciplinary sanctions is not to punish the offender, but to 
protect the public.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204, 2004-
Ohio-4704, 815 N.E.2d 283, citing Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 41 Ohio St.2d 
97, 100, 322 N.E.2d 665 (1975).  In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Nyce, 152 Ohio St.3d 
501, 2018-Ohio-9, 98 N.E.3d 226, we determined that an attorney was “ ‘no longer 
fit to practice a profession grounded on trust, integrity, and candor’ and that the 
only way to ensure the protection of the public [was] to permanently disbar him,” 
id. at ¶ 40, quoting the board’s report.  Believing that “[Moore], like Nyce, is 
incapable of exhibiting the trust, integrity, and candor upon which the profession is 
grounded,” the board recommends that Moore be permanently disbarred for his 
misconduct. 
{¶ 18} Having considered the predatory nature of Moore’s conduct in this 
case, the disturbing escalation of his dishonest conduct since we last disciplined 
him, the numerous aggravating factors and complete absence of any mitigating 
factors, and Moore’s evident contempt for the disciplinary process, we agree with 
the board’s assessment that Moore is no longer fit to practice law in this state and 
that permanent disbarment is necessary to protect the public from future 
misconduct.  We therefore adopt the board’s recommended sanction of permanent 
disbarment. 
{¶ 19} Accordingly, Rodger William Moore is permanently disbarred from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Moore. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
_________________ 
The Abrams Law Firm, L.L.C., and Laura A. Abrams; Dressman, 
Benzinger, LaVelle and Kelly Schoening Holden; and Edwin W. Patterson III, Bar 
Counsel, for relator. 
Rodger William Moore, pro se. 
_________________