Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Brown

Citation: 1997-Ohio-209

Docket Number: 19962372

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-05-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
Cincinnati Bar Association v. Brown. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Brown (1997), _____Ohio St.3d_____.] 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Handling a legal 
matter one is not competent to handle -- Failing to withdraw from 
employment when mental condition renders it unreasonably difficult 
to carry out employment effectively -- Engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation -- Engaging in 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice -- Failing to seek 
lawful objectives of client -- Failing to carry out contract of 
employment -- Prejudicing or damaging client during course of 
professional relationship -- Neglecting an entrusted legal matter -- 
Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law 
-- Knowingly making false statement of law or fact in representation 
of client -- Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation. 
 
(No. 96-2372 -- Submitted February 19, 1997 -- Decided May 14, 
1997.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-31. 
 
2
 
On April 10, 1995, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a five-
count complaint charging respondent, Stanley Brown of Covington, 
Kentucky, Attorney Registration No. 0041489, with violating a number of 
Disciplinary Rules.  On August 3, 1995, relator filed an amended complaint, 
charging violation of other Disciplinary Rules in four additional counts.  On 
March 21, 1996, relator filed a motion for default judgment.  Respondent 
received the complaint and the amended complaint, but he failed to answer 
or otherwise plead within time. 
 
On September 27, 1995, the Supreme Court of Kentucky disbarred 
respondent from the practice of law in Kentucky.  Thereafter respondent 
failed to respond to our order to show cause why he should not be 
suspended in Ohio under the reciprocal provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F).  
On May 3, 1996, we issued an order suspending respondent from the 
practice of law in Ohio until such time as he is reinstated to the practice of 
law in Kentucky. 
 
On the basis of relator’s motion for default judgment, a panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme 
Court (“board”) made the following findings and conclusions.  In December 
 
3
1991, Dale Price retained respondent to pursue a malicious prosecution and 
defamation claim on his behalf, which respondent did in December 1993.  
Price was awarded a judgment of $1 because respondent did not provide 
evidence of damages.  Price notified relator that respondent had filed an 
affidavit in a Kentucky action that prior to July 7, 1994, he was suffering 
from manic depression and was not capable of performing as an attorney.  
The panel concluded that respondent’s actions in undertaking the 
representation of Price violated DR 6-101(A)(1) (handling a legal matter he 
knows he was not competent to handle), 2-110(B)(3) (failing to withdraw 
from employment where his mental condition renders it unreasonably 
difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively), 1-102(A)(4) 
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation) by concealing his disability from Price, and 1-102(A)(5) 
(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). 
 
In April 1993, James Issac hired respondent to obtain a reversal of a 
juvenile court contempt finding, reduce Isaac’s support payments, and 
establish specific visitation rights for him.  Respondent pursued and 
obtained only the first of these objectives.  The panel concluded that by this 
 
4
failure to act respondent had violated DR 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek the 
lawful objectives of the client), (2) (failing to carry out a contract of 
employment), and (3) (prejudicing or damaging the client during the course 
of the professional relationship). 
 
After respondent filed a bankruptcy petition on July 5, 1994 for 
Robin Bryant and her former husband, Stephen, respondent failed to appear 
at the Section 341 meeting of creditors in their case, failed to respond to 
telephone calls and requests from the United States trustee for information 
about the  Bryants’ case, failed to appear at a hearing before the bankruptcy 
court to show cause why he should not return the fees paid to him by the 
Bryants, and failed to appear before the bankruptcy court on an order to 
show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his conduct.  
Ultimately the bankruptcy judge suspended respondent from practicing in 
the bankruptcy court.  The panel concluded that by this conduct respondent 
had violated DR 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter 
entrusted to him), and  7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3). 
 
In the summer of 1994, respondent appeared in common pleas court 
on behalf of Steven Kippenberg and filed a motion to dismiss an action 
 
5
against him.  Respondent, however, failed to appear at the hearing on the 
motion or at any of the three continued hearings.  He also failed to appear at 
the hearing on whether he should be found to be in contempt.  As a result, 
the common pleas court  fined respondent $250 and sentenced him to a 
suspended sentence of one day in jail.  The panel found that respondent’s 
conduct in this instance violated DR 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(3), 7-
101(A)(1), (2), and (3), 1-102(A)(4) and (5), 1-102(A)(6)(engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law), and 7-
102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of law or fact in the 
representation of a client). 
 
Respondent failed to respond to five letters from relator with respect 
to these grievances and the panel concluded that such conduct violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)(failure to cooperate in an investigation). 
 
Respondent undertook to defend Melinda Mather on a driving under 
the influence charge, but he failed to inform her of the final court date.  
When Mather failed to appear, a capias warrant for her arrest was issued.  
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(1), 6-
101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3). 
 
6
 
Also, after Mather retained respondent in March 1994 to represent her 
in an employment discharge case, respondent failed to return her phone calls 
and failed to return her file.  The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct 
in this matter violated DR 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), (2), and 
(3), and 9-102(B)(4) (failure to promptly deliver as requested by a client 
property in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to 
receive). 
 
Patricia Ditomaso retained respondent on a contingent-fee basis in 
April 1994 to represent her in a personal injury lawsuit and respondent 
failed to file the suit before the running of the statute of limitations.  The 
panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(1), 2-
110(B)(3), 6-101(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4) and 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3). 
 
Respondent also failed to cooperate with relator’s counsel, Kevin 
Swick, in the investigation of  the grievance filed by Mather.  The panel 
concluded that this failure violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
 
The only evidence which the panel received in mitigation was an 
affidavit from a Kentucky physician to the effect that respondent suffered 
from severe depression and was not capable of performing as an attorney 
 
7
during April, May, and June 1994, and a July 7, 1994 affidavit of 
respondent filed in a Kentucky case to support his withdrawal as counsel in 
that matter, averring that he was suffering from manic depression, that he 
had moved his office to Covington, Kentucky, and that his secretary had 
quit. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be disbarred.  The board 
adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the recommendation of 
the panel. 
_____________________________________ 
 
James L. O’Connell and Kevin L. Swick, for relator. 
_____________________________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We concur with the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK 
and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.