Title: Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bond

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. Bond, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1587.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-1587 
GEAUGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BOND. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bond, Slip Opinion  
No. 2016-Ohio-1587.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct—Public 
reprimand. 
(No. 2015-1636—Submitted November 17, 2015—Decided April 20, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the  
Supreme Court, No. 2015-014. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Daniel Earl Bond of Chardon, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0003004, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1975.  In 
an August 11, 2015 amended complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged 
Bond with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct after he 
provided financial assistance to a man whom he believed to be a client but who was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
actually a thief.  The parties submitted stipulated exhibits and agreed that Bond 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating or attempting to 
violate the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct) by attempting to violate 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(e) (prohibiting a lawyer from providing financial assistance to a 
client in connection with pending or contemplated litigation except in certain 
limited circumstances). 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct granted the parties’ 
motion to waive the hearing, adopted the parties’ stipulated findings of fact, and 
agreed that Bond violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(a) by attempting to violate 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.18(e).  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and 
misconduct as well as the panel’s recommendation that Bond be publicly 
reprimanded for that misconduct. 
{¶ 3} We find that Bond violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(a) by loaning money to 
a person whom he believed was his client and therefore adopt the board’s findings 
of fact and misconduct, dismiss the remaining alleged violations, and agree that a 
public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for Bond’s misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} On February 18, 2014, Bond filed a report with the Chardon Police 
Department alleging that he had received a phone call earlier that month from 
Patrick Paul Heald, who stated that he had been referred to Bond to discuss his 
personal-injury case.  Bond reported that when he met Heald at a diner in 
Willoughby, Ohio, on February 3, 2014, Heald’s right arm was bandaged and he 
was limping.  Heald claimed that he had been badly burned in an industrial accident 
and requested financial assistance to pay for medication and living expenses until 
he received his next paycheck.  Later that day, Bond entered into a contingent-fee 
agreement to represent Heald in his personal-injury matter.  He also had Heald sign 
a photocopy of seven $100 bills with the notation, “Temporary loan of $700.00 
cash advanced 2/3/14 by Daniel E. Bond to Patrick Paul Heald,” and then gave him 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
the cash and a check for $1,300.  Heald did not repay the loan as agreed and made 
excuses for his failure to do so. 
{¶ 5} After receiving a telephone inquiry from another man seeking 
representation in a personal-injury matter, Bond reported these facts to the Chardon 
Police Department.  Heald was indicted and convicted of theft, for which he was 
sentenced to eight months in prison and ordered to pay restitution of $2,000 to 
Bond. 
{¶ 6} Because Heald intended to perpetrate a fraud against Bond, the board 
found that no attorney-client relationship was ever formed and consequently 
determined that Bond’s conduct did not violate Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(e).  See, e.g., 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hardiman, 100 Ohio St.3d 260, 2003-Ohio-5596, 798 
N.E.2d 369, ¶ 10, (the determination of whether an attorney-client relationship was 
created turns largely on the reasonable belief of the prospective client). 
{¶ 7} However, the parties stipulated and the board found that Bond’s 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(a) because he attempted to violate Prof.Cond.R. 
1.8(e) by loaning money to a person with whom he had contracted to provide legal 
services.  Noting that factual or legal impossibility are not valid defenses to the 
attempt to commit a criminal offense, the board concluded that Heald’s fraud did 
not excuse Bond’s attempt to violate Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(e).  See R.C. 2923.02(B) 
(providing that factual or legal impossibility are not valid defenses for a R.C. 
2923.02(A) charge of criminal attempt if the underlying offense could have been 
committed had the attendant circumstances been as the actor believed them to be). 
{¶ 8} Relator’s amended complaint also alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 
1.18(a) (providing that a person who consults with a lawyer about the possibility of 
forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client 
to whom the attorney may owe certain duties) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
But the board recommends that we dismiss these two alleged violations based on 
the insufficiency of the evidence. 
{¶ 9} We adopt the board’s findings of fact, agree that Bond’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(a), and hereby dismiss the alleged violations of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(e), 1.18(a), and 8.4(h). 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties 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.  We also weigh evidence of the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13). 
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated that no aggravating factors are present.  
Mitigating factors stipulated by the parties include the absence of a prior 
disciplinary record, Bond’s full and free disclosure to the board and his cooperative 
attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and his good character and reputation 
apart from the charged misconduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), and (5).  The 
board adopted these stipulations and the parties’ recommendation that Bond be 
publicly reprimanded for his misconduct. 
{¶ 12} In support of the recommended sanction, the board cites two cases 
in which we have publicly reprimanded attorneys for advancing funds to clients in 
violation of DR 5-103(B) (while representing a client in connection with 
contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer shall not advance or guarantee 
financial assistance to the client, except expenses of litigation).1  See Cleveland Bar 
Assn. v. Nusbaum, 93 Ohio St.3d 150, 2001-Ohio-1305, 753 N.E.2d 183 (publicly 
reprimanding an attorney with no prior discipline who advanced $26,000 to a 
personal-injury client); and Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Mineff, 73 Ohio St.3d 281, 652 
                                                 
1 Effective February 1, 2007, the Rules of Professional Conduct superseded the Disciplinary Rules 
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  
January Term, 2016 
 
5
N.E.2d 968 (1995) (publicly reprimanding an attorney who provided $5,300 to a 
client to cover the client’s living expenses during the pendency of his workers’ 
compensation claim). 
{¶ 13} Having considered Bond’s misconduct, the absence of aggravating 
factors, the presence of several mitigating factors, and the sanctions we imposed 
for comparable misconduct in Nusbaum and Mineff, we adopt the board’s 
recommended sanction in this case. 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, Daniel Earl Bond is hereby publicly reprimanded.  
Costs are taxed to Bond. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and 
FRENCH, JJ., concur. 
O’NEILL, J., dissents and would dismiss the complaint. 
_________________ 
R.C. Swencki & Associates and Ronald C. Swencki; and Joseph H. Weiss 
Jr., for relator. 
Daniel Earl Bond, pro se. 
_________________