Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Wittbrod

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Wittbrod, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4706.] 
 
 
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-4706 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. WITTBROD. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. Wittbrod,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4706.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Multiple violations of Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including neglecting an entrusted legal matter and failing to cooperate in 
a disciplinary investigation — Indefinite suspension, with credit for time 
served. 
(No. 2010-0668 — Submitted June 21, 2011 — Decided September 21, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No.  09-009. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Harry Wittbrod, whose last known address is in 
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0066021, was admitted to the 
practice of law in Ohio in 1996. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} In July 2009, we suspended his license to practice law in Ohio for 
six months, and stayed the entire suspension on conditions, for violating DR 1-
104(A) and (B) (requiring a lawyer to disclose to the client that the lawyer lacks 
professional-liability insurance and to maintain a copy of the written notice signed 
by each client for five years after termination of the representation) and 6-102 
(prohibiting a lawyer from attempting to exonerate himself from or limit his 
liability to a client for malpractice) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(h)(2) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from settling a claim for malpractice unless certain requirements are met).  
Akron Bar Assn. v. Wittbrod, 122 Ohio St.3d 394, 2009-Ohio-3549, 911 N.E.2d 
901.  In November 2009, we imposed an attorney-registration suspension for 
failure to file a certificate of registration and pay applicable fees on or before 
September 1, 2009, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. VI.  In re Attorney 
Registration Suspension, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 
1256.  And on February 3, 2010, we revoked the stay of respondent’s previous 
suspension upon finding him in contempt of our prior order.  124 Ohio St.3d 
1465, 2010-Ohio-341, 920 N.E.2d 991. 
{¶ 3} On May 18, 2009, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed an amended 
complaint charging respondent with three counts of professional misconduct.1 
Respondent was served with a copy of the complaint but did not answer, and 
relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master 
commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline granted the motion, making findings of misconduct and recommending 
that respondent be suspended for six months, to be served consecutively to the 
suspension imposed by this court in February 2010.  The board, however, 
recommended that we indefinitely suspend respondent based upon his 
                                                 
1 Relator charged respondent with misconduct pursuant to applicable rules for acts occurring 
before and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 
superseded the Code of Professional Responsibility. 
 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
indifference to the disciplinary sanctions and his failure to cooperate, but credit 
him for time served for his prior disciplinary offenses. 
{¶ 4} On December 6, 2010, we remanded this cause to the board for 
supplementation of the record in accordance with the evidentiary standard set 
forth in Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b). 
{¶ 5} On February 14, 2011, and March 31, 2011, relator submitted 
supplemental materials in support of its motion for default.  Satisfied that those 
materials met the standard set forth in Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b), the master 
commissioner reiterated the prior findings of fact and misconduct but 
recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law 
in Ohio with credit for time served pursuant to his prior disciplinary sanction.  
The board adopted that report in its entirety, as do we. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 6} In December 2005, a client retained respondent to represent him in a 
tort action following an automobile accident.  The parties reached a settlement in 
December 2006, and respondent was to keep $4,044.47 in escrow to pay the 
client’s medical bills, although there is no evidence that he has done so.  
Respondent did not return the client’s telephone calls, and on April 29, 2008, the 
client learned that respondent had closed his office without leaving a forwarding 
address.  Respondent did not maintain malpractice insurance and failed to advise 
the client and obtain his written acknowledgment of that fact. 
{¶ 7} The board found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent’s 
conduct violated DR 1-104(A) and (B) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a 
lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not maintain professional-liability 
insurance), DR 6-101(A)(3) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (prohibiting neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (both 
requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation).  Based upon a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
lack of sufficient evidence, however, the board dismissed alleged violations of 
DR 9-102(A) and (B) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 (requiring a lawyer to hold client 
funds separate from the lawyer’s own and to maintain complete records of all 
client property in the lawyer’s possession).  We accept these findings of fact and 
misconduct. 
Count Two 
{¶ 8} In June 2004, a woman retained respondent to file a bankruptcy 
proceeding on behalf of her and her husband.  After respondent filed a Chapter 13 
bankruptcy petition on the couple’s behalf, the husband lost his job and the couple 
fell behind in their Chapter 13 payments, although they continued to make their 
mortgage payments.  A dispute arose over those mortgage payments, and in June 
2008, respondent advised the clients that the mortgage company had returned 
their payments of approximately $5,000.  Respondent did not return those funds 
to the client or provide an accounting.  He ceased communication with the clients, 
and as a result of his inaction, they were forced to sell their house at a substantial 
loss in order to avoid foreclosure.  And although the board did not make a finding 
to this effect, the client’s affidavit demonstrates that respondent failed to advise 
her that he did not maintain malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 9} The board concluded that this conduct violated DR 1-104(A) and 
(B) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c), DR 6-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from handling 
a matter that he is not competent to handle without obtaining assistance from a 
lawyer who is competent to handle it), DR 6-101(A)(3) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b).  As in Count One, the board 
dismissed alleged violations of DR 9-102(A) and (B) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 for 
insufficient evidence.  We accept these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Count Three 
{¶ 10} In October 2007, a client retained respondent to represent her in a 
bankruptcy proceeding.  The client advised him that she wanted to reaffirm the 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
debt on her automobile lease to protect a cosigner’s credit rating.  Despite 
respondent’s repeated assurances that the lease had been reaffirmed, respondent 
later informed her that it had been charged off by the bank.  Respondent ignored 
the client’s efforts to communicate with him, and the bank eventually repossessed 
the car.  And although the board did not make a finding to this effect, the client’s 
affidavit demonstrates that respondent failed to advise her that he did not maintain 
malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 11} The board concluded, and we agree, that respondent’s conduct with 
respect to Count Three violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide 
competent representation to a client), 1.3, 1.4(c), and 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G). 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} 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.   
{¶ 13} There is no evidence of any mitigating factors in this case, although 
the board noted that respondent’s earlier disciplinary sanction had been stayed on 
conditions, including compliance with an Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
contract. 
{¶ 14} The board found in aggravation, however, that respondent had been 
previously sanctioned for similar incidents of professional misconduct and that 
based upon his failure to comply with that previous order, this court had found 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
him in contempt and revoked the stay of his earlier six-month suspension.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a).  Respondent also engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct involving multiple offenses and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary 
process, and there is no evidence that he has made restitution to the client harmed 
by his conduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), (h), and (i).  The 
board concluded that respondent’s conduct demonstrates a complete lack of 
remorse or acceptance of responsibility as well as a complete disregard for the 
disciplinary system and the profession. 
{¶ 15} Relator argued in favor of an indefinite suspension for respondent’s 
misconduct.  The board observed that “Respondent was not entirely candid with 
this Board or the Supreme Court in submitting stipulated misconduct and a 
recommended sanction of leniency in the first disciplinary matter when he had 
knowledge of the transactions that are the subject of the present Complaint.”  
Citing respondent’s indifference to his prior disciplinary sanctions, complete lack 
of remorse or acceptance of responsibility for his conduct, and his failure to 
cooperate in this disciplinary proceeding, the board recommends that respondent 
be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio but that he receive 
credit for time served for his prior disciplinary offenses. 
{¶ 16} We have previously recognized that neglect of an entrusted legal 
matter coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation 
warrants an indefinite suspension.  See, e.g.,  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 
Ohio St.3d 269, 2010-Ohio-136, 921 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 10; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 337, 2009-Ohio-764, 904 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 17; Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 
19. 
{¶ 17} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 
we adopt the board’s recommended sanction. 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, Harry Wittbrod is indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in the state of Ohio with credit for time served pursuant to Akron 
Bar Assn. v. Wittbrod, 124 Ohio St.3d 1465, 2010-Ohio-341, 920 N.E.2d 991. 
{¶ 19} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and 
MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., concurs with the sanction but would not give credit for 
time served under the prior suspension. 
__________________ 
Joseph S. Kodish, Kathryn A. Belfance, and Stephen A. Fallis, for relator. 
______________________