Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Kaplan

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. Kaplan, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-167.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-167 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. KAPLAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Kaplan,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-167.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary 
investigation — Failure to act promptly in representing a client — Failure 
to maintain client financial records — Failure to keep client informed — 
Indefinite license suspension. 
(No. 2009-1500 — Submitted October 20, 2009 — Decided January 28, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-068. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, William Kaplan of Shaker Heights, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0030108, was admitted to the Ohio Bar in May 1967.  In August 
2008, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, filed a complaint charging 
respondent with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.  Relator served respondent with the 
complaint, but he did not answer.  Therefore, in June 2009, relator moved for 
default.  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
referred the default motion to a master commissioner, who prepared a report for 
the board’s review.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings, 
including that the materials offered in support of the default motion were 
sufficient and that respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and five of the 
Rules of Professional Conduct. 
{¶ 3} In accordance with the master commissioner’s report, the board 
recommends that this court indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice 
law based upon its findings that respondent neglected client matters, failed to 
maintain a record documenting his receipt of a client’s fee, failed to promptly 
comply with a reasonable client requests for information, failed to keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of the client’s legal matter, and failed to 
cooperate in a disciplinary proceeding. We agree that respondent committed 
professional misconduct as found by the board and that his conduct warrants an 
indefinite suspension. 
Misconduct 
The Burge Grievance 
{¶ 4} On May 21, 2007, Tina Marie Burge filed a grievance with relator 
alleging that she paid respondent $350 to convert her pending Chapter 13 
bankruptcy to a Chapter 7, but that he did not perform the requested service and 
did not respond to her phone calls.  Eventually, respondent did refund her fee.  
Although respondent sent relator a letter stating that he had suffered a head injury 
and requested additional time to respond to the Burge complaint, he never filed a 
written response or met with the investigator to discuss the allegations. 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
{¶ 5} With respect to the Burge matter, the board determined that 
respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to 
assist or testify in an investigation or hearing) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (a lawyer 
shall not knowingly fail to respond to a demand for information from a 
disciplinary authority). 
The Smith Grievance 
{¶ 6} In March 2007, Lateanar Smith retained respondent to file a 
Chapter 13 bankruptcy on her behalf, provided him with documents relevant to 
that filing, and paid him $724.  After respondent failed to respond to Smith’s 
phone calls in April and May 2007, Smith discharged him by letter dated May 21, 
2007, and requested a refund and return of documents.  On June 5, 2007, 
respondent left Smith a message stating that he was prepared to file her 
bankruptcy petition but that he needed her to sign papers.  He also asked her to 
provide a copy of the receipt for her retainer because he could not locate any 
record of her payment. 
{¶ 7} Smith filed a grievance with relator in July 2007.  In September 
2007, respondent returned Smith’s documents.  Although respondent appeared at 
relator’s office for his deposition in January 2008, presented a color photocopy of 
a check for $724 made payable to Lateanar Smith, and stated under oath that he 
would promptly mail the check to Smith after the deposition, he did not refund 
her retainer until August 4, 2008. 
{¶ 8} Based upon clear and convincing evidence, the board found that 
respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness in representing a client), 1.4(a)(4) (a lawyer shall comply as soon 
as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client), and 
1.15(a) (a lawyer shall maintain a record for each client on whose behalf funds are 
held) with respect to the Smith matter. 
The Draper Grievance 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 9} In February 2007, Lavesha Draper retained respondent to file a 
Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan on her behalf.  Although respondent filed the plan, 
the bankruptcy trustee objected because the plan failed to provide evidence of 
automobile insurance, and Third Federal Savings & Loan objected because the 
plan failed to properly account for the debt associated with its mortgage on 
Draper’s home.  In response to Third Federal’s complaint, respondent moved the 
bankruptcy court to modify the plan to account for the omitted debt, thereby 
increasing the monthly withholding from Draper’s paycheck without her 
knowledge.  When Draper’s payroll-processing company failed to forward her 
payments to the trustee, the bankruptcy court dismissed the proceeding on April 
19, 2007, for failing to fund the plan.  Two months later, after Draper informed 
him that her house was about to be sold at a sheriff’s sale, respondent moved the 
bankruptcy court to reinstate the case.  The court denied the motion to reinstate 
Draper’s bankruptcy proceeding and further rejected respondent’s effort to 
convert the bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 proceeding.  Respondent failed to inform 
Draper of these events, and on July 26, 2007, she filed a grievance against him. 
{¶ 10} The board determined that clear and convincing evidence 
demonstrated that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4(a)(3) (a lawyer 
shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter) with 
respect to the Draper matter. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the duties violated by the lawyer in question 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.  We also weigh evidence of 
the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10(B)(1) and (2) of the 
Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 
N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 12} The board determined that the following aggravating factors exist:  
(1) a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(c) and (d); (2) a lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process and a 
refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(e) and (g); (3) commission of a deceptive practice during the 
disciplinary process by representing under oath that he would mail a check to 
Smith refunding her retainer shortly after his deposition, when, in fact he did not 
mail it until approximately eight months later,  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(f); and 
(4) no evidence that respondent attempted to make restitution for the financial 
losses that Draper may have incurred as a result of respondent’s misconduct, 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(i). 
{¶ 13} In mitigation, the board found that respondent was admitted to the 
practice of law in 1967 and that he has no prior disciplinary record.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  Additionally, the board noted that respondent had sent a 
letter to the investigating attorney in October 2007 stating that he had suffered a 
significant traumatic head injury the previous month and that he had also reported 
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and anxiety.  However, the board 
concluded that the record did not demonstrate any link between respondent’s 
medical conditions and his misconduct. 
{¶ 14} Relator recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent from 
the practice of law. 
{¶ 15} “A lawyer’s neglect of legal matters and failure to cooperate in the 
ensuing disciplinary investigation generally warrant an indefinite suspension from 
the practice of law in Ohio.”  Akron Bar Assn. v. Goodlet, 115 Ohio St.3d 7, 
2007-Ohio-4271, 873 N.E.2d 815, ¶ 20; see also Disciplinary Counsel v. Gosling, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
114 Ohio St.3d 474, 2007-Ohio-4267, 873 N.E.2d 282, ¶ 12; Cuyahoga Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Wagner, 113 Ohio St.3d 158, 2007-Ohio-1253, 863 N.E.2d 164, ¶ 13-14. 
{¶ 16} Here, the record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence 
that respondent neglected client matters, failed to maintain a record documenting 
the receipt of a client’s fee, failed to promptly comply with reasonable client 
requests for information, and failed to cooperate in a disciplinary proceeding, 
thereby violating Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 
1.15(a), and 8.1(b) 
{¶ 17} Having weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case 
and having considered the sanctions previously imposed for comparable conduct, 
we adopt the board’s recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension.  
Accordingly, William Kaplan is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice 
of law in the state of Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Leif B. Cristman and James A. Loeb, for relator. 
______________________