Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Austin

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Austin, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-3325.] 
 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-3325 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. AUSTIN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Austin, Slip Opinion No.  
2019-Ohio-3325.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the 
Rules for the Government of the Bar—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2018-0159—Submitted May 21, 2019—Decided August 21, 2019.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2017-067. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Rebecca Jo Austin, of Lakewood, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0088694, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2012. 
{¶ 2} On November 30, 2017, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar 
Association, charged Austin with neglecting two client matters, failing to cooperate 
in a disciplinary investigation, and other professional misconduct.  Austin failed to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
answer the complaint, and on February 23, 2018, we imposed an interim default 
suspension pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(14)(B)(1).  152 Ohio St.3d 1253, 2018-Ohio-
656, 96 N.E.3d 290.  On May 4, 2018, we found her in contempt because she had 
not timely complied with our default-suspension order.  152 Ohio St.3d 1459, 2018-
Ohio-1710, 97 N.E.3d 497.  On August 22, 2018, Austin moved for leave to answer 
relator’s complaint, and on October 1, 2018, we granted her motion and remanded 
the case to the Board of Professional Conduct, although we kept her interim default 
suspension in place.  153 Ohio St.3d 1489, 2018-Ohio-3955, 108 N.E.3d 86. 
{¶ 3} On remand, relator amended its complaint to include additional 
alleged misconduct, including that Austin continued to practice law during her 
interim default suspension.  Austin stipulated to most of the factual allegations in 
the amended complaint but not to any ethical-rule violations.  After a hearing before 
a panel of the board, the board issued a report finding that Austin had engaged in 
most of the charged misconduct1 and recommending that we indefinitely suspend 
her from the practice of law, grant her credit for the time she has served under her 
interim default suspension, order her to pay restitution to a former client, and 
impose conditions on her reinstatement.  Neither party filed objections to the 
board’s report. 
{¶ 4} Upon our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of 
misconduct and recommended sanction.  However, we conclude that Austin shall 
not receive any credit for the nearly three-month period that she continued to 
practice law during her interim suspension.  Therefore, Austin shall receive credit 
beginning May 16, 2018. 
 
 
                                                 
1. Relator withdrew Count V of its amended complaint, and the panel later dismissed that count. 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
Misconduct 
Count I—the Long matter 
{¶ 5} On February 24, 2017, Joseph Long paid Austin a retainer to assist 
him with a postdecree filing in his divorce case.  Long thereafter attempted to 
contact Austin by phone, e-mail, and text, but she failed to respond to his messages.  
Long also sent Austin a narrative about his legal matter, but she failed to file 
anything on his behalf.  About two months after retaining Austin, Long sent her an 
e-mail requesting a refund of his retainer.  Austin again failed to reply. 
{¶ 6} On May 10, 2017, Austin sent Long an e-mail apologizing for “recent 
communications issues,” which she claimed were caused by technological 
problems with her e-mail and phone and exacerbated by personal issues.  Later the 
same day, Long sent Austin an e-mail terminating her services and again requesting 
a refund of his retainer.  Austin, however, failed to return the unearned portion of 
Long’s retainer until more than ten months later. 
{¶ 7} Based on this conduct, the board found that Austin violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter), and 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply 
as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client).  
We agree with the board’s findings of misconduct. 
Count II—the employment-discrimination case 
{¶ 8} In 2017, Austin represented the defendants in an employment-
discrimination case.  The parties settled the matter, and Austin was to finalize a 
settlement entry with the plaintiff’s counsel.  The settlement, however, was not 
finalized, and the court scheduled a show-cause hearing against Austin for October 
2, 2017.  Austin failed to appear for the hearing, and the court found her in 
contempt.  Austin also failed to appear for a hearing on the plaintiff’s supplemental 
motion to enforce the settlement and for attorney fees.  At her disciplinary hearing, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Austin testified that she had not received electronic notice of the hearings but she 
also acknowledged that the docket for the case was available online and that any 
problems she experienced with her e-mail did not absolve her of the duty to attend 
court hearings. 
{¶ 9} Based on this conduct, the board found that Austin committed another 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3.  We agree with the board’s finding of misconduct. 
Count III—the Rogers matter 
{¶ 10} On February 19, 2018, Ashley Rogers retained Austin to represent 
her in a domestic-violence action against Rogers’s husband.  Austin advised Rogers 
how to obtain an ex parte temporary protection order, which Rogers later secured 
on her own.  Four days later, on February 23, we issued Austin’s interim default 
suspension. 
{¶ 11} On February 27, 2018, Austin met with Rogers and collected $1,000 
in cash and a $400 check for the representation.  Austin failed to inform Rogers 
about the suspension.  One day later, Austin advised Rogers that Rogers did not 
need to attend the hearing on her petition for a protection order that was scheduled 
for the next day.  Instead, Austin appeared for the hearing—although she declined 
to enter a notice of appearance—and signed an agreed entry continuing the matter 
as “Pro Se, Attorney for Petitioner.”  After the hearing, Austin notified Rogers of 
the new hearing date but again failed to mention her suspension. 
{¶ 12} On March 5, 2018, Rogers sent Austin a text message stating that the 
court had contacted her because Austin had not entered an appearance on Rogers’s 
behalf.  Rogers asked Austin whether she should hire a new attorney.  Austin falsely 
responded, “I’m representing you and I’ll clear it up.”  On March 12, Rogers sent 
Austin another text expressing similar concerns.  Austin replied, “Don’t be worried 
* * *.  Sit tight and give me a few days, I’ll have info for you then.”  By March 14, 
Rogers had learned of Austin’s suspension and sent her a text message requesting 
January Term, 2019 
 
5
a refund.  In response, Austin stated that she was “addressing the situation” and that 
she anticipated that her suspension would be “very temporary.” 
{¶ 13} A few days later, Austin sent Rogers an invoice charging Rogers for 
services that Austin had performed during her suspension.  At her disciplinary 
hearing, Austin attempted to characterize those services as nonlegal.  But the board 
found that Austin’s actions were “the essence of legal representation.”  Austin later 
returned Rogers’s $400 check but never refunded her $1,000 cash payment. 
{¶ 14} Based on this conduct, the board found that Austin violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from charging or collecting an illegal or 
clearly excessive fee), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or 
other property that the client is entitled to receive), 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal 
profession in that jurisdiction), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice).  We agree with the board’s findings of misconduct. 
Count IV—misconduct during Austin’s interim default suspension 
{¶ 15} Count IV of relator’s amended complaint involved three instances of 
Austin engaging in misconduct after we issued her February 23, 2018 interim 
default suspension. 
{¶ 16} First, as noted above, Austin appeared for the March 1, 2018 hearing 
on Rogers’s petition for a domestic-violence protection order.  After a magistrate 
raised the issue of Austin’s suspension, Austin replied that she was “filing a 
petition,” that her “boss” would take over her cases, and that she hoped by “next 
week” the issue would be resolved.  When she made those statements, however, 
Austin was a solo practitioner without a boss to take over her cases.  In addition, 
Austin had not filed a petition for reinstatement and would not file anything in this 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
disciplinary matter until more than five months later.  At her disciplinary hearing, 
Austin acknowledged that her statements to the magistrate were not true. 
{¶ 17} Second, on March 5, 2018—more than a week after Austin’s 
suspension—she attended an attorney conference in a juvenile-court case in which 
she was serving as the guardian ad litem for three minor children.  Austin failed to 
inform the court that her license had been suspended.  After one of the parties in 
the case filed a motion to remove Austin because of her suspension, Austin filed a 
document stating that she had been “petitioning” this court to reinstate her license 
and “working diligently to comply with the Supreme Court.”  But two weeks before 
she filed the document, we had issued an order to show cause why she should not 
be held in contempt for failing to comply with our default-suspension order, and 
she never filed a response to that show-cause order. 
{¶ 18} Third, on May 15, 2018—almost three months after we issued 
Austin’s interim default suspension—she sent a letter to the guardian ad litem for 
two children in a divorce proceeding.  Austin’s letter referred to the father in the 
divorce case as “my client” in a related criminal matter.  The letterhead stated 
“Austin Law LLc” and included a website address of “www.clelawfirm.com.”  The 
letter referred to Austin’s suspension only indirectly, by stating, “Regardless of the 
status of my professional license, I pride myself on being a hard-working, ethical, 
and astute guardian ad litem.”  (Italics sic.) 
{¶ 19} Based on this conduct, the board found that Austin violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false 
statement of fact or law to a tribunal) and 5.5(a).  We agree with the board’s findings 
of misconduct. 
Counts VI and VII—additional rule violations and failure to cooperate 
{¶ 20} In October 2017, Austin’s malpractice insurance lapsed, and she 
thereafter failed to properly notify clients in writing that she lacked insurance.  In 
addition, at the time of her misconduct, her law practice had no permanent physical 
January Term, 2019 
 
7
address.  Rather than use her home address or a post-office box as her business 
address, she used the address of a UPS store, which she later acknowledged was 
facially misleading.  In addition, Austin failed to pay her attorney-registration fees 
for the period of September 15, 2017, through October 31, 2017.  And she failed to 
cooperate in relator’s disciplinary investigation between May 2017 and June 2018.  
She also failed to appear for a scheduled deposition. 
{¶ 21} Based on this conduct, the board found that Austin violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not 
maintain professional-liability insurance and obtain a signed acknowledgment of 
that notice from the client), Prof.Cond.R. 7.1 (prohibiting a lawyer from using a 
false, misleading, or nonverifiable communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s 
services), Gov.Bar R. VI (requiring an attorney to register with the Supreme Court 
on or before the first day of September in each odd-numbered year), and 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) (both requiring an attorney to 
cooperate with a disciplinary investigation).  We agree with the board’s findings of 
misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 22} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 23} As aggravating factors, the board found that Austin had engaged in 
a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, and initially failed to 
cooperate in relator’s disciplinary investigation.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3), (4), 
and (5).  The board also concluded that Austin’s misconduct had harmed a 
vulnerable client—Ashley Rogers—and that Austin had failed to make restitution 
to Rogers.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(8) and (9). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
{¶ 24} In mitigation, the board noted that Austin has a clean disciplinary 
record and lacked a dishonest or selfish motive.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and 
(2).  Specifically, the panel members had the impression that Austin “was never 
trying to take advantage of any client and that she was genuinely trying to help her 
clients while keeping all of her spinning plates in the air.  Her plates crashed.  She 
is picking up the pieces.”  The board also noted that Austin had made full and free 
disclosures during her disciplinary hearing.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(4).  The 
evidence did not establish the existence of a mental disorder that would qualify as 
a mitigating factor under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7) (permitting the existence of a 
disorder to be considered a mitigating factor only if certain conditions are met).  
However, the board noted Austin’s testimony that at the time of her misconduct, 
she was operating in “crisis mode” due to various stressors in her personal life and 
had been receiving treatment from a mental-health professional. 
{¶ 25} To support its recommended sanction, the board cited several 
decisions imposing indefinite suspensions for comparable misconduct.  For 
example, in Toledo Bar Assn. v. Woodley, 132 Ohio St.3d 120, 2012-Ohio-2458, 
969 N.E.2d 1192, we indefinitely suspended an attorney who neglected three client 
matters, failed to return those clients’ unearned fees, continued practicing law 
during his attorney-registration suspension, requested additional fees from a client 
without advising the client that he was suspended, and failed to cooperate in the 
disciplinary investigation.  Similarly, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Higgins, 117 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2008-Ohio-1509, 884 N.E.2d 1070, we indefinitely suspended an 
attorney who continued to practice law during his continuing-legal-education 
suspension, accepted fees from a client after his suspension, failed to disclose to 
the client that he was suspended, neglected the client’s matter, and failed to 
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  And in Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Mitchell, 124 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-135, 921 N.E.2d 634, we indefinitely 
suspended an attorney who practiced law during his attorney-registration 
January Term, 2019 
 
9
suspension and intentionally attempted to deceive a court as to his identity and the 
status of his law license. 
{¶ 26} Here, Austin neglected two client matters, practiced law after the 
imposition of her interim default suspension, collected legal fees from a client while 
she was suspended, failed to fully refund those fees, made misrepresentations to a 
client and courts about her suspension, and failed to cooperate in relator’s 
disciplinary investigation.  The board expressly opposes disbarment, concluding 
that Austin “likely has the ability to establish that she is a proper person to be 
readmitted to the bar of Ohio in the future.”  Considering the aggravating and 
mitigating factors and the sanctions imposed in comparable cases, we adopt the 
board’s recommended sanction.  An indefinite suspension will serve to protect the 
public while also leaving open the possibility that Austin might be able to return to 
the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 27} For the reasons explained above, Rebecca Jo Austin is indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio, with credit from May 16, 2018, for the 
time she has served under the February 23, 2018 interim default suspension.  Within 
90 days of our disciplinary order, Austin shall make restitution in the amount of 
$1,000 to Ashley Rogers or reimburse the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection for 
any payments made to Rogers.  In addition to the requirements set forth in Gov.Bar 
R. V(25)(D)(1), Austin’s reinstatement shall be conditioned upon proof that she has 
(1) undergone an assessment by the Ohio Lawyers’ Assistance Program and (2) 
fully complied with the recommendations resulting from that assessment, including 
the receipt of any mental-health services in the Cleveland area.  Costs are taxed to 
Austin. 
Judgment accordingly. 
KENNEDY, FRENCH, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FISCHER, J., would not award credit for time served 
under the interim default suspension. 
_________________ 
Thompson Hine, L.L.P., and Karen E. Rubin; and Heather M. Zirke and 
Kari L. Burns, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Rebecca Jo Austin, pro se. 
_________________