Title: Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Patterson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Patterson, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6166.] 
 
 
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. 2009-OHIO-6166 
GEAUGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. PATTERSON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Patterson,  
Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6166.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Multiple violations related to aiding the 
unauthorized practice of law — 18-month suspension with conditional six-
month stay. 
(No. 2009-1509 — Submitted September 16, 2009 — Decided  
December 2, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-018. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David N. Patterson of Willoughby, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0015280, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1964. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for 18 months, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
staying the last six months on condition of no further misconduct.  The 
recommendation is based on findings that respondent mishandled a decedent’s 
estate and committed other misconduct by disregarding his duty to exercise 
independent professional judgment on behalf of clients who were facing 
foreclosure.  We agree that respondent violated ethical duties incumbent on Ohio 
lawyers and that an 18-month suspension of his license with a conditional six-
month stay is appropriate. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Geauga County Bar Association, charged respondent with 
three counts, alleging violations of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct.1  The board 
considered the case on a consent-to-discipline agreement, filed pursuant to BCGD 
Proc.Reg. Section 11, in which the parties stipulated to facts and misconduct and 
proposed the 18-month license suspension and six-month conditional stay.  The 
board accepted the agreement and recommends the jointly proposed sanction. 
Misconduct 
Count One — The Mishandled Estate 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulated that respondent prepared for a client in early 
2004 a durable power of attorney, a trust, and a will.  Respondent and a friend of 
the client, another woman whom respondent also represented, were appointed 
cotrustees of the trust, and the will named respondent executor of the client’s 
estate.  The client died in June 2004, and that July, the Geauga County Probate 
Court appointed respondent as executor of her estate. 
{¶ 5} In November 2005, the probate court removed respondent as the 
estate’s executor, citing pending and anticipated legal action against his cotrustee, 
who had apparently misappropriated assets belonging to the estate, and the 
                                                 
1.  Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before 
and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 
supersede the Code of Professional Responsibility. 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
resulting conflict of interest for respondent.  In August 2006, the court followed 
up by finding that respondent had “neglected to secure estate assets and allowed 
[his cotrustee] to exercise dominion and control over estate assets to the detriment 
of the estate.” 
{¶ 6} According to the court’s order, respondent had allowed his 
cotrustee to “transfer an automobile owned by the decedent to his wife.”  He had 
also “permitted [the cotrustee] to pay him $2,500.00 out of estate assets for a debt 
allegedly owed him by the decedent” without timely submitting the claim to and 
obtaining the approval of the probate court as required by law.  Finally, the order 
noted that respondent had been cited once for failing to file a certificate of service 
of notice of probate of the will and twice for failing to timely file the inventory for 
the estate.  The court ordered him to reimburse the estate $1,795.40 in fiduciary 
fees for his neglect. 
{¶ 7} We accept respondent’s admission that he mishandled this 
decedent’s estate and thereby violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
neglecting an entrusted legal matter). 
Count Two — Lapses in Representing Clients in Foreclosure During 2007 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated to the facts underlying Count Two as 
follows: 
{¶ 9} “Respondent entered into an agreement in June of 2007 to 
represent customers of Foreclosure Solutions, LLC, a company located in Ohio 
which purported to serve property owners threatened with foreclosure by helping 
them to cause their home loan to be re-instated and avoid foreclosure.  Pursuant to 
this agreement, Respondent collected a flat fee of $200.00 for each client in 
exchange for his representation of them in foreclosure proceedings filed in the 
Common Pleas Courts of Northeast Ohio. 
{¶ 10} “The client had no choice in the Respondent’s selection when the 
Respondent was hired by Foreclosure Solution’s Agents.  Respondent did not 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
meet with clients of Foreclosure Solutions to determine their objectives or 
complete financial situation or discover the facts that could be defenses to 
foreclosure. 
{¶ 11} “Respondent did not determine what legal action should be taken 
in the client’s best interest[,] leaving that up to [the] judgment of Foreclosure 
Solutions. 
{¶ 12} “Respondent accepted a portion of the compensation paid to 
Foreclosure Solutions for their services. 
{¶ 13} “Respondent’s misconduct consisted of his failure to meet directly 
with the client, the sharing of legal fees with non-lawyers and aiding in the 
unauthorized practice of law.” 
{¶ 14} We accept respondent’s admissions that in representing clients 
facing foreclosure during 2007, he violated the following Rules of Professional 
Conduct: 
{¶ 15}  • 1.2(a) (requiring a lawyer to “abide by a client’s decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, [to] 
consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued”); 
{¶ 16}  • 1.4(a) (requiring a lawyer to (1) promptly inform clients as to 
matters needing informed consent, (2) reasonably consult with clients about the 
means to accomplish clients’ objectives, (3) keep clients reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter, (4) comply as soon as practicable with clients’ 
reasonable requests for information, and (5) consult with clients about any 
relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client 
expects assistance not permitted by law); 
{¶ 17}  • 1.4(b) (requiring a lawyer to explain matters to clients to the 
extent reasonably necessary for clients to make informed decisions regarding the 
representation);  
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
{¶ 18}  • 5.4(a) (with exceptions not relevant here, prohibiting a lawyer 
from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer); and  
{¶ 19}  • 5.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from permitting a person who 
recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to 
direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering those legal 
services). 
Count Three ⎯ Lapses in Representing a Client in Foreclosure 
During 2006 
{¶ 20} The parties stipulated to the facts underlying Count Three as 
follows: 
{¶ 21} “Respondent accepted a referral from Foreclosure Alternatives on 
June 7, 2006 to represent [a client] in a foreclosure matter pending before the 
Clermont County Court of Common Pleas * * *.  Foreclosure Alternatives is a 
company which purported to serve property owners threatened with foreclosure 
by helping them cause their home loan to be re-instated and avoid foreclosure.  
Respondent collected a flat fee from Foreclosure Alternatives in exchange for his 
representation of [the client] in the Common Pleas Court of Clermont County. 
{¶ 22} “[The client] had no choice in the Respondent’s selection, when he 
was hired by Foreclosure Alternative’s Agents.  Respondent did not meet with 
[the client] to determine his objectives or complete financial situation or discover 
the facts that could be defenses to the foreclosure. As a matter of fact, [the client] 
did not learn Respondent’s identity until more than six (6) months after 
Respondent filed an Answer to the Complaint for Foreclosure in the Clermont 
County Court of Common Pleas. 
{¶ 23} “Respondent did nothing to determine what legal action should be 
taken in [the client’s] best interest[,] leaving it up to Foreclosure Alternatives. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 24} “[The client] filed a Voluntary Petition for Bankruptcy in March of 
2007 * * * and eventually lost his home. 
{¶ 25} “Respondent accepted a portion of compensation paid to 
Foreclosure Alternatives for their services as his fees. 
{¶ 26} “Respondent’s misconduct consisted of his failure to meet directly 
with the client, the sharing of legal fees with non-lawyers and aiding in the 
unauthorized practice of law.” 
{¶ 27} We accept respondent’s admissions that in representing this client 
during 2006, he violated the following Disciplinary Rules: 
{¶ 28}  • DR 2-103(C) (with exceptions not relevant here, prohibiting a 
lawyer from requesting a person or organization to recommend or promote the use 
of the lawyer’s services as a private practitioner); 
{¶ 29}  • DR 3-101(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from aiding a nonlawyer in 
the unauthorized practice of law; 
{¶ 30}  • DR 3-102(A) (with exceptions not relevant here, prohibiting a 
lawyer from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer); 
{¶ 31}  • DR 6-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from handling legal 
representation without adequate preparation under the circumstances); and 
{¶ 32}  • DR 7-101(A)(1) (with exceptions not relevant here, requiring a 
lawyer to seek the lawful objectives of clients). 
Sanction 
{¶ 33} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Willard, 123 Ohio St.3d 15, 2009-Ohio-
3629, 913 N.E.2d 960, we considered another lawyer who partnered with a 
nonattorney 
organization 
to 
represent 
clients 
in 
mortgage-foreclosure 
proceedings.  That association presented the same ills as have respondent’s 
alliances⎯insufficient attorney-client communication and case preparation, 
nonattorney promotion of the lawyer’s legal services, the aiding of the 
January Term, 2009 
7 
 
unauthorized practice of law, and the sharing of legal fees.  Together, these 
failings signal the surrender of an attorney’s ability to exercise independent 
professional judgment on a client’s behalf and manifest an overarching breach of 
the lawyer’s duty of loyalty to the client. 
{¶ 34} We ordered the actual suspension of Willard’s license for his 
infractions, suspending him from practice for one year, but staying the last six 
months on remedial conditions.  Id. at ¶ 31.  The parties in this case, however, 
have agreed that a longer suspension period is warranted because respondent’s 
prior disciplinary record weighs against him.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a).  
Respondent received public reprimands for ethical lapses in Lake Cty. Bar Assn. 
v. Patterson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 163, 18 O.O.3d 382, 413 N.E.2d 840, and 
Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Patterson, 111 Ohio St.3d 228, 2006-Ohio-5488, 855 
N.E.2d 871. 
{¶ 35} We agree that the recommended sanction is appropriate based on 
the combination of misconduct in this case and respondent’s prior disciplinary 
record.  We therefore suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for 18 
months; however, the last six months of the suspension are stayed on the 
condition that respondent commit no further misconduct.  If respondent violates 
the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and he will serve the full 
suspension period.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Joseph H. Weiss Jr. and Edward T. Brice, for relator. 
Koblentz & Koblentz, Richard S. Koblentz, and Bryan L. Penvose, for 
respondent. 
______________________