Case Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Glaeser

Citation: 2008-Ohio-6199

Docket Number: 20081215

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-12-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Glaeser, 120 Ohio St.3d 350, 2008-Ohio-6199.] 
 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. GLAESER. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Glaeser, 
 120 Ohio St.3d 350, 2008-Ohio-6199.] 
Attorney misconduct — Multiple Disciplinary Rule violations, including 
engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law, engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice, and neglecting an entrusted legal matter — 
Two-year suspension, with one year stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2008-1215 – Submitted August 26, 2008 – Decided December 4, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No.  07-100. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, William P. Glaeser of Parma, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0075837, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2003.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has recommended 
that we indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice, based on findings 
that he misled a client about having filed and settled a lawsuit on the client’s 
behalf.  We agree that respondent violated the Code of Professional 
Responsibility but find that a two-year suspension of his license, with one year 
stayed on conditions of restitution and no further misconduct, is the appropriate 
sanction under the circumstances. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, charged respondent 
with multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules, all for misconduct involving a 
single client.  Respondent received notice of the complaint but did not answer, 
and relator moved for default.  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
appointed by the board granted the motion, making findings of misconduct and 
recommending the indefinite suspension.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings and recommendation. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent agreed in April 2004 to represent Gregory Bacon in an 
action against Bacon’s former building contractor, David Kuhns, d.b.a. D&D 
Vinyl Siding and Windows (“D&D”).  Respondent advised Bacon to forgo filing 
a lawsuit against D&D and to sue D&D’s bonding company instead.  Bacon 
accepted this advice and paid respondent $150 in filing fees. 
{¶ 4} Later, respondent falsely told Bacon that he had filed suit against 
D&D’s bonding company.  In May 2006, respondent advised Bacon that the 
bonding company had agreed to pay $300,000 to settle the claim.  He told Bacon 
that the settlement would be paid in $150,000 installments, the first in June and 
the second in November of that year. 
{¶ 5} When June came, respondent told Bacon that the owner of the 
bonding company had been incarcerated and had not paid the first installment.  
Respondent reported that a judge had ordered the owner to pay $500 in sanctions 
for each day that the owner failed to comply with the settlement agreement, and 
he assured Bacon that the bonding company’s assets had been frozen.  Bacon later 
learned that everything respondent had told him regarding his case was untrue. 
{¶ 6} Bacon discharged respondent in November 2006 and requested the 
return of his case file.  Respondent did not give up the file until the investigation 
of Bacon’s grievance.  In late November 2007, respondent registered as an 
attorney on inactive status. 
{¶ 7} Clear and convincing proof establishes that respondent misled his 
client, failed to pursue his client’s case as promised, and then failed to promptly 
return his client’s property.  We therefore find that respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
January Term, 2008 
3 
deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct 
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 
6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (a 
lawyer shall not intentionally fail to seek the lawful objectives of a client), 7-
101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not intentionally fail to carry out a contract of 
employment), DR 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not intentionally prejudice or 
damage a client), DR 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly pay or deliver to a 
client as requested property that the client is entitled to receive).1 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the duties violated by the lawyer in question 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 Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  Because each disciplinary 
case is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take 
into account “all relevant factors” in determining what sanction to impose.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
A.  Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
{¶ 9} We have already discussed respondent’s violations of the duties 
owed to his client (DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3), and 
                                                 
1. The complaint charged a violation of DR 9-102(B)(4), but the master commissioner and board 
parenthetically misquoted the substance of that rule, quoting instead the substance of DR 9-
102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds coming into the possession of the 
lawyer and render appropriate accounts to clients regarding them). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
9-102(B)(4)), the judicial system (DR 1-102(A)(5)), and the legal profession (DR 
1-102(A)(6)).  Exacerbating these ethical breaches is the fact that respondent was 
repeatedly dishonest about Bacon’s case.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  
Moreover, though we have no evidence that respondent’s lapses caused Bacon 
greater financial loss than the $150 filing fee, we also have no evidence that he 
has made restitution in this amount.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(i). 
{¶ 10} Mitigating circumstances are also present.  Respondent has no 
prior disciplinary record, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), and although he did 
not answer the complaint, he did cooperate in the investigation of Bacon’s 
grievance.  Respondent met with relator’s investigator despite the fact that he was 
experiencing serious health problems and had recently undergone quadruple 
bypass surgery.  He also candidly admitted having failed to file Bacon’s 
complaint in 2004 and having misrepresented that he had.  Respondent revealed 
that at the time of his dealings with Bacon, he was recovering from his son’s 2003 
murder.  Respondent also noted that although he is in his 50s, he is a recent 
(2003) admittee to the bar. 
B.  Sanctions in Similar Cases 
{¶ 11} In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 107 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-
6513, 839 N.E.2d 24, we found a lawyer in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-
101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(2) because he had falsely advised a couple that he had 
filed a wrongful-death action for them and then lied repeatedly about how the 
case was progressing.  Id. at ¶ 4.  In addition, the lawyer had previously dismissed 
the couple’s son’s personal-injury action without permission and then lied about 
the circumstances of the dismissal, telling the couple that the defendant had 
agreed to settle the case and that he was having difficulty collecting the money.  
Id. at ¶ 6-8.  The statute of limitations lapsed on both claims, although the 
lawyer’s malpractice insurance covered some of the clients’ losses.  Id. at ¶ 12. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
{¶ 12} In Hickman, the lawyer’s 25-year, previously unblemished legal 
career weighed in his favor, as did his complete admission to and remorse for his 
wrongdoing.  Id. at ¶ 10.  That lawyer also presented strong evidence of his 
overall good character and reputation.  Id. at ¶ 11.  We suspended the lawyer’s 
license to practice for one year and stayed the last six months on the condition of 
no further misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 15. 
{¶ 13} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Keller, 110 Ohio St.3d 240, 2006-
Ohio-4354, 852 N.E.2d 1195, the lawyer failed to advise a client that he had no 
malpractice insurance as required by DR 1-104, lied about having filed a 
personal-injury action and having received a settlement offer from the insurer, and 
then tried to get his client to agree to the insured’s alleged settlement offer so that 
the attorney could pay the amount himself to conceal his malpractice.  Id. at ¶ 4-5.  
Mitigating factors included that the lawyer had no disciplinary record, had 
conceded all wrongdoing, and had shown good character apart from the incidents 
at issue.  Id. at ¶ 10.  That lawyer had also experienced great misfortune at the 
time of his wrongdoing, including the murder of his child and an alcohol 
addiction that contributed to cause his dishonesty.  Id.  We suspended the lawyer 
for two years and stayed the last 18 months on the conditions of restitution, 
compliance with an Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, and no further 
misconduct.  Id. at 14. 
{¶ 14} 
The lawyer in Disciplinary Counsel v. Novak, 110 Ohio St.3d 
134, 2006-Ohio-3823, 851 N.E.2d 498, violated the same Disciplinary Rules as 
respondent and some additional rules as well.  Id. at ¶ 25.  That lawyer accepted 
money to file an appeal, failed to file it, and then lied more than once to the client 
about the filing.  Id. at ¶ 13.  The lawyer also told one of his clients that he had 
filed successive motions to enforce a settlement when he had not.  Id. at ¶ 15.  The 
lawyer had also failed to appear at a hearing in a third client’s case, prompting the 
court to grant summary judgment against his client and award sanctions.  Id. at ¶ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
8.  The lawyer further failed to tell his clients that he had no malpractice insurance 
and ignored efforts to investigate his misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 4, 9, 11. 
{¶ 15} We ordered a two-year suspension of the lawyer’s license in 
Novak, with a stay of the second year on conditions that the lawyer completed a 
six-month monitored probation of his practice and made restitution.  Id. at ¶ 26.  
That lawyer had no prior record of discipline, and he also eventually conceded his 
ethical lapses.  Id. at ¶ 20.  Also weighing in favor of the stayed suspension was 
the fact that the lawyer had a depressive condition that had contributed to cause 
his ethical misconduct and for which he had sought treatment.  Id. at ¶ 21. 
C.  Disposition 
{¶ 16} 
We hold that a two-year suspension with one year stayed on the 
conditions of no further misconduct and restitution is consistent with the sanctions 
we have ordered in similar cases.  Respondent is therefore suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for two years; however, the second year is stayed on the 
conditions that he commit no further misconduct and, within 30 days of our order, 
pay $150 in restitution, with interest at the judgment rate, to Bacon.  If respondent 
fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and he will 
serve the entire two-year suspension. 
{¶ 17} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O'DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
LANZINGER, J., dissents and would indefinitely suspend the respondent. 
_________________ 
Ellen S. Mandell, Bar Counsel, Thomas J. Escovar, and Gary S. Fishman, 
for relator. 
______________________