Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Gibson

Citation: 2011-Ohio-628

Docket Number: 20101798

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-02-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Gibson, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-628.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-628 
AKRON BAR ASSN. v. GIBSON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. Gibson, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-628.] 
Attorney misconduct, including entering into a business transaction with a client 
without memorializing the terms in writing, knowingly making a false 
statement of material fact, and failing to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client. 
(No. 2010-1798 — Submitted January 4, 2011 — Decided February 16, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-074. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Ruth A. Gibson of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0004701, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1983.  In 
October 2009, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a three-count complaint 
charging respondent with professional misconduct arising from her performing 
painting and maintenance services for a client while representing him in a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
divorce, her efforts to obtain payment for those services, and her conduct after 
another client terminated her services as an attorney.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has accepted the parties’ agreed 
stipulations of fact and misconduct and recommends that we suspend respondent 
from the practice of law for one year, with the entire year stayed on the conditions 
that she submit to one year of monitored probation, complete 12 hours of 
continuing legal education (“CLE”) in law-office management, and commit no 
further misconduct.  We agree that respondent committed professional 
misconduct as found by the board, and we impose the recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 2} The parties have stipulated that during respondent’s representation 
of a client in a divorce proceeding, she entered into an oral agreement with the 
client to perform certain nonlegal services to prepare for sale a piece of real 
property owned by the client and his spouse.  Respondent then sought a court 
order for payment for those nonlegal services from funds that the client and his 
spouse had placed in escrow for that purpose, but she did not disclose to the court 
or to opposing counsel that she and her husband would be the recipients of that 
payment.  In response, opposing counsel moved to disqualify respondent as 
counsel on the basis that she was a potential witness regarding the value of the 
nonlegal services she had performed.  On the day of the hearing on these 
competing motions, respondent induced the third party holding the money to 
distribute the funds for her nonlegal services without the approval of opposing 
counsel or the court.  Thereafter, in an effort to avoid being deposed as a witness, 
respondent filed a notice of withdrawal of counsel and withdrew her request for 
payment for her nonlegal services.  She failed to disclose, however, that she had 
already received payment for those services. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
{¶ 3} While there is no evidence that the amount respondent charged for 
her nonlegal services was unfair or unreasonable, respondent did not (1) fully 
disclose the terms of the arrangement to the client in writing, (2) advise the client, 
in writing or otherwise, of the desirability of seeking the advice of independent 
legal counsel regarding the transaction, and (3) did not obtain the client’s 
informed consent in writing. 
{¶ 4} Based upon these facts, the parties have stipulated, the panel and 
board have found, and we agree that respondent’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.8(a)(1), (2), and (3) (requiring a lawyer entering into a business transaction with 
a client to memorialize the terms of the transaction in writing, to advise the client, 
in writing, of the desirability of seeking independent legal counsel, and to obtain 
the client’s informed consent in a writing signed by the client), 4.1(a) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law), 8.4(a) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from violating or attempting to violate the Ohio Rules of 
Professional Conduct), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness 
to practice law).  Relator has formally withdrawn its allegation that respondent 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice), and, citing a lack of sufficient evidence to establish when or if the 
respondent had sufficient information to determine that she was likely to be a 
necessary witness in the divorce proceedings, the panel and board have 
recommended that we dismiss an alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 3.7(a) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from acting as an advocate in a trial in which the lawyer is 
likely to be a witness). 
{¶ 5} We accept these findings of fact and misconduct and hereby 
dismiss the alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 3.7(a). 
Counts II and III 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 6} Counts II and III arise from respondent’s conduct at the conclusion 
of her representation of another client in two legal matters.  Relator and 
respondent stipulate that respondent interpreted the client’s October 2008 
termination of her services in a domestic-relations case as a termination of her 
services in a second case as well.  Respondent, however, failed to file a notice of 
withdrawal of counsel or a motion seeking leave to withdrawal as counsel in the 
client’s domestic-relations case, and waited several months to do so in the client’s 
other case.  She ceased attending court hearings on the client’s behalf, failed to 
forward letters and documents regarding the client’s legal matters, and ignored the 
client’s requests to return her files. 
{¶ 7} The parties have stipulated, the panel and board have found, and 
we agree that respondent’s conduct in each of these counts violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 
1.16(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from withdrawing from representation in a 
proceeding without leave of court if the rules of the tribunal so require), and 
1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer withdrawing from representation to take reasonably 
practicable steps to protect the client’s interest). 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} 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 Section 10(B) 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. 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
{¶ 9} In mitigation of punishment, the panel and board found that 
respondent has no prior disciplinary record, has demonstrated a cooperative 
attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and has demonstrated her reputation 
for competence, honesty, and trustworthiness, apart from the charged misconduct.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (e).  They further observed that 
respondent has performed substantial pro bono work as a volunteer lawyer and 
court-appointed guardian ad litem and special advocate for juveniles, that she has 
been involved in professional and bar association work and committees, and that 
her significant respiratory illnesses beginning in December 2008 were a 
contributing factor to some of her misconduct.  The only aggravating factor 
present is respondent’s commission of multiple offenses.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(d). 
{¶ 10} The panel and board acknowledge that a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(c) generally requires an actual suspension from the practice of law.  See 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 
237 (holding that misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law).  
Nonetheless, they observe that an abundance of mitigating evidence may justify 
the imposition of a lesser sanction.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Fumich, 116 
Ohio St.3d 257, 2007-Ohio-6040, 878 N.E.2d 6 (imposing a one-year stayed 
suspension based upon mitigating evidence and absence of motive to exploit 
clients); Dayton Bar Assn. v. Ellison, 118 Ohio St.3d 128, 2008-Ohio-1808, 886 
N.E.2d 836, (imposing a one-year stayed suspension based upon mitigating 
factors including the lawyer’s commitment to and reputation for providing legal 
services to needy clients). 
{¶ 11} In this case, respondent entered into a business transaction with a 
client 
without 
making 
the 
required 
disclosures 
and 
made 
material 
misrepresentations of fact to the escrow agent and the court in seeking payment 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
for her nonlegal services and in withdrawing her motion for payment without 
disclosing to the court that she had already received payment.  She also ceased her 
representation of another client without obtaining leave from the court to do so 
and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the client’s interests.  However, there 
is no evidence that either client was harmed as a result of respondent’s conduct.  
In light of this fact and the substantial mitigating factors found by the panel and 
board, we agree that the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct is a 
one-year suspension, all stayed on the conditions that she serve one year of 
probation, supervised by a monitor appointed by relator pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(9), that she complete 12 hours of CLE in law-office management in addition to 
the CLE requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and that she commit no further 
misconduct. 
{¶ 12} Accordingly, we suspend Ruth A. Gibson from the practice of law 
in Ohio for one year, all stayed on the conditions that she serve one year of 
probation supervised by a monitor appointed by relator, complete 12 hours of 
CLE in law-office management in addition to the CLE requirements of Gov.Bar 
R. X, and commit no further misconduct.  If respondent fails to comply with the 
conditions, the stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire one-year 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
David M. Lowry, Harvey F. Miller, and William G. Chris, for relator. 
Peter T. Cahoon, for respondent. 
______________________