Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Freeman

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. Freeman, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1483.] 
 
 
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-1483 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. FREEMAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Freeman,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1483.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Multiple violations of Code of Professional 
Responsibility and Rules of Professional Conduct — Failure to cooperate 
in disciplinary investigation — Permanent disbarment. 
(No. 2010-1479 — Submitted January 18, 2011 — Decided April 5, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-070. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Bryan S. Freeman of Lakewood, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0070637, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1999. 
{¶ 2} On August 17, 2009, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar 
Association, filed an 18-count complaint against respondent, alleging numerous 
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rules of Professional 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Conduct, arising from his conduct in eight separate client matters.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline was unable to obtain certified mail 
service at respondent’s residence or office addresses.  Therefore, the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court of Ohio accepted service on respondent’s behalf in accordance 
with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). 
{¶ 3} On January 1, 2010, relator filed a motion for entry of default, and 
on January 15, 2010, respondent moved for leave to file an answer.  In an April 
26, 2010 entry, the board granted respondent an extension until May 24, 2010, to 
answer the complaint.  But when respondent again failed to answer the complaint, 
relator renewed its motion for default judgment. 
{¶ 4} A master commissioner appointed by the board granted relator’s 
motion, making findings of fact and misconduct and recommending that 
respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The board adopted 
the master commissioner’s report in its entirety.  Relator objects to this 
recommendation, arguing that respondent’s conduct warrants permanent 
disbarment. 
{¶ 5} In light of respondent’s extensive misconduct, which includes 
misappropriation of client funds, multiple instances of neglect, failure to 
reasonably communicate with his clients, making false statements to clients and to 
relator’s investigator, and a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary 
investigations, we sustain relator’s objections and permanently disbar respondent 
from the practice of law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} In a disciplinary proceeding, relator bears the burden of proving a 
lawyer’s professional misconduct by clear and convincing evidence.  Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(J); Akron Bar Assn. v. Catanzarite, 119 Ohio St.3d 313, 2008-Ohio-4063, 
893 N.E.2d 835, ¶ 5.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b), a motion for default 
in a disciplinary proceeding must be supported by “[s]worn or certified 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
documentary prima facie evidence in support of the allegations made.”  In this 
case, relator has submitted the affidavits, with accompanying documents, of seven 
of respondent’s aggrieved clients and the affidavits of two judges, an Assistant 
United States Attorney, Assistant Bar Counsel, and two members of the Certified 
Grievance Committee.  Additionally, relator has submitted certified copies of 
court dockets, filings, and orders relating to the aggrieved clients’ cases, as well 
as transcripts of a court proceeding and relator’s attempted deposition of 
respondent.  Having considered relator’s evidence, the master commissioner and 
board have found that respondent has violated the ethical rules incumbent upon 
Ohio lawyers in the following matters. 
Grievants Sawyer, Marshall, Bruce, and Mayle 
{¶ 7} The board found that although respondent settled the personal-
injury claims of grievants Sawyer, Marshall, Bruce, and Mayle, he either failed to 
distribute or failed to promptly distribute the proceeds of those settlements to the 
grievants, their healthcare providers, or their subrogated insurers.  And in one 
instance, he failed to submit all of the client’s medical bills for reimbursement by 
the tortfeasor.  In three of those cases, respondent failed to answer or return his 
client’s telephone calls seeking information about their legal matters. 
{¶ 8} During the disciplinary investigation, respondent also advised 
relator that he had been working with an Assistant United States Attorney to 
resolve a Medicare lien on the proceeds of the Mayle settlement.  In his affidavit, 
however, that Assistant United States Attorney averred that there is no record that 
respondent ever contacted his office regarding Medicare’s claim against that 
grievant. 
{¶ 9} The board found that respondent had committed one violation of 
DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting neglect of an entrusted legal matter), three violations 
of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), two violations of 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s 
objectives are to be accomplished), four violations of 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer 
to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), four 
violations of 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with 
reasonable requests for information from the client), one violation of  1.15(d) 
(requiring a lawyer, upon request, to promptly render a full accounting of funds or 
property in which a client or third party has an interest), and one violation of 
8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
Grievants Harris and Resnick 
{¶ 10} After filing a complaint in Harris’s personal-injury action, 
respondent failed to obtain service on some of the defendants and did not inform 
the grievant of his intention to dismiss her case before he did so.  Throughout the 
representation, Harris was unable to reach respondent, and he failed to promptly 
deliver her case file upon request.  The board found that respondent’s conduct in 
the Harris matter violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(1) 
(requiring a lawyer to inform the client of any decision or circumstance with 
respect to which the client’s informed consent is required) and 1.4(a)(2) through 
(4). 
{¶ 11} Resnick had retained respondent to pursue a personal-injury claim 
in June 2008.  But when respondent failed to return several phone calls, Resnick 
retained another attorney in early 2009.  Although Resnick made several requests 
for his file, respondent did not deliver it until approximately March 16, 2009.  The 
board found that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2) through (4), and 
1.15(d). 
Grievants Olivito and Coates 
{¶ 12} Respondent represented another client in a personal-injury matter 
that was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and later 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
transferred to the Carroll County Court of Common Pleas.  During that 
representation, the client received a letter on respondent’s letterhead from a 
woman who identified herself as respondent’s assistant.  The letter, dated October 
15, 2008, informed the client that respondent had participated in a pretrial in her 
case and that the court had scheduled another pretrial for December 15, 2008.  
Neither docket reflects a pretrial set for the later date.  However, the certified 
docket and the affidavit of Judge Olivito in Carroll County demonstrate that 
respondent failed to appear at the October 2008 pretrial and did not respond to 
discovery requests or an order compelling discovery.  Consequently, the court 
granted a motion to dismiss the action without prejudice that was filed by the 
defendant in the personal-injury matter. 
{¶ 13} The board found that respondent’s conduct with respect to the 
client violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2) through (4), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice). 
{¶ 14} Grievant Lisa L. Coates was the judge assigned to a case in which 
respondent’s client was charged with operating a vehicle while under the 
influence, driving under suspension, and failure to control.  Although respondent 
had advised the judge and the prosecutor that he would file a motion to suppress 
before trial, he failed to do so.  At respondent’s request, the judge continued the 
trial for two weeks.  On the date of the trial, respondent requested and received 
another continuance after informing the court that he had been in a car accident. 
{¶ 15} When respondent and his client failed to appear on the third trial 
date, the court issued a bench warrant for the client’s arrest.  The judge recalled 
the warrant and set a fourth trial date after the client advised her that respondent 
had not notified her of the trial date.  When respondent failed to appear on the 
next trial date, the judge granted a continuance to allow the client to retain new 
counsel and issued a show-cause order to respondent.  Respondent appeared at the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
show-cause hearing, albeit late, and agreed to reimburse the local government that 
filed the case for the costs associated with his failure to appear.  Respondent 
failed to pay the ordered restitution and did not appear at the hearing on the 
prosecution’s motion to compel. 
{¶ 16} The board found that respondent’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.3 and 1.4(a)(2) through (4), as well as 8.4(c) and (d). 
Failure to Cooperate in a Disciplinary Investigation 
{¶ 17} Despite having received notice of the grievances against him, 
respondent failed to cooperate in relator’s investigation and has never provided a 
written response to any of the grievances.  The board found that respondent’s 
conduct with respect to each of the eight grievances violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1 
(prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for 
information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation) and Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). 
Acceptance of Board’s Findings of Fact and Misconduct 
{¶ 18} We accept the board’s findings of fact and misconduct with respect 
to each of these matters because the record clearly and convincingly supports 
them. 
{¶ 19} Because we agree with the board’s findings that alleged violations 
of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(1) were not supported by the evidence with respect to the 
Bruce, Resnick, Mayle, Markey, and Coates matters, we hereby dismiss them.  
We also observe that neither relator’s motion for default judgment nor the board’s 
report address alleged violations of  Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(1) and (2) in the Sawyer 
and Marshall matters, 1.16(d) in the Harris matter, or 1.3 in the Bruce matter, and 
therefore we dismiss them. 
Sanction 
{¶ 20} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
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.   
{¶ 21} In its default motion, relator argued that respondent’s misconduct 
warrants permanent disbarment.  The master commissioner and board, however, 
recommend that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  Relator 
objects to this recommendation, arguing that pursuant to our precedent, 
respondent’s conduct involving the misappropriation of client funds, multiple 
instances of neglect, and his complete failure to cooperate in the disciplinary 
investigation warrants permanent disbarment. 
{¶ 22} Respondent has committed more than 50 ethical violations, 
including multiple instances of neglect and failure to reasonably communicate 
with his clients or comply with their reasonable requests for information.  He has 
misappropriated settlement funds.  He has made false statements to clients and to 
relator’s investigator, failed to attend scheduled court appearances, and failed to 
cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigations.  Furthermore, he has 
delayed the board’s consideration of relator’s default motion, and consequently 
has delayed the imposition of his sanction, by requesting and obtaining leave to 
answer the complaint but failing to file an answer. 
{¶ 23} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent acted with 
a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving 
multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, failed to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, caused harm to vulnerable 
clients, and failed to make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
(e), (g), (h), and (i).  The only mitigating factor present is the absence of a prior 
disciplinary record.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
{¶ 24} We have previously recognized that neglect of entrusted legal 
matters 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.  
Respondent’s conduct, however, also includes misappropriation of client 
settlement funds and misrepresentation, and we have consistently recognized that 
the presumptive sanction for misappropriation of client funds is permanent 
disbarment.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones, 112 Ohio St.3d 46, 2006-
Ohio-6367, 857 N.E.2d 1221, ¶ 22 (presumptive sanction for pattern of 
misconduct involving dishonesty, misappropriation, and lack of cooperation in 
disciplinary proceedings is disbarment); Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fernandez, 99 
Ohio St.3d 426, 2003-Ohio-4078, 793 N.E.2d 434, ¶ 9 (“The presumptive 
sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment”); Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Smith, 101 Ohio St.3d 27, 2003-Ohio-6623, 800 N.E.2d 1129, ¶ 9 
(“Absent any mitigating factors, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for an 
attorney’s misappropriation of client funds”); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 
102 Ohio St.3d 264, 2004-Ohio-2683, 809 N.E.2d 1113, ¶ 15 (an attorney’s 
“persistent neglect of his clients’ interests, failure to perform as promised, failures 
to account for his clients’ money, and lack of any participation in the disciplinary 
proceedings” warrant disbarment). 
{¶ 25} Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the only appropriate 
sanction for respondent’s misconduct is permanent disbarment. 
{¶ 26} Accordingly, Bryan S. Freeman is permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2011 
9 
 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, L.L.P., Joseph N. Gross, and 
David W. Mellott, for relator. 
______________________