Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Greenberger

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Greenberger, 113 Ohio St.3d 162, 2007-Ohio-1255.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. GREENBERGER. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Greenberger,  
113 Ohio St.3d 162, 2007-Ohio-1255.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension. 
(No. 2006-1928 – Submitted November 29, 2006 — Decided April 4, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-026. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Bruce L. Greenberger of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0023820, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1974. 
{¶ 2} On March 8, 2006, we suspended respondent’s license to practice 
for two years, but stayed the last six months of that suspension on the condition 
that he repay unearned legal fees and make other restitution to five clients for 
whom he did not provide promised legal services.  Muskingum Cty. Certified 
Grievance Commt. v. Greenberger, 108 Ohio St.3d 258, 2006-Ohio-790, 842 
N.E.2d 1042. 
{¶ 3} On April 18, 2005, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged 
respondent in a single-count complaint with additional professional misconduct in 
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent answered the 
complaint, and the parties later stipulated to charged misconduct and the 
underlying facts.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline considered the cause without a hearing and made findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and a recommendation.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
Misconduct 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulated that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) 
(prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) 
and 9-101(A)(1) [sic, 9-102(A)] (requiring a lawyer to deposit client funds in a 
separate, identifiable bank account) by converting funds to his own use.  
Respondent stole this money in 2004, while working as a salaried attorney in the 
Law Offices of Arnold Levine.  During his employment, respondent accepted 
payments totaling $1,850 from seven clients.  He did not deposit these funds into 
a client trust account, using the money instead as his own.  When confronted by 
his employer, respondent admitted the theft. 
{¶ 5} The board found violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) and 9-102(A). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 6} The parties jointly advocated a one-year actual suspension of 
respondent’s license, to be served concurrently with the suspension now in effect.  
Adopting the panel’s report, however, the board recommended a one-year 
suspension, to be consecutive to the suspension he is currently serving.  In 
addition, the board recommended that at the end of the consecutive suspensions, 
respondent be required to petition for reinstatement pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(10)(C) through (G), the more rigorous process reserved for reinstatement 
following an indefinite suspension from the practice of law, rather than through 
the application process provided for actual suspension periods under Gov.Bar R. 
V(10)(A).  The board recommended this procedure, consistent with the sanction 
ordered in Muskingum Cty. Certified Grievance Commt. v. Greenberger, 108 
Ohio St.3d 258, 2006-Ohio-790, 842 N.E.2d 1042, ¶ 31, to ensure that respondent 
is not permitted to return to the practice of law prematurely. 
Review 
{¶ 7} We accept the board findings that respondent violated the cited 
Disciplinary Rules and agree that the board’s recommended sanction is 
appropriate. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
{¶ 8} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for one year.  This suspension is to be consecutive to the suspension 
imposed in Greenberger, 108 Ohio St.3d 258, 2006-Ohio-790, 842 N.E.2d 1042.  
Moreover, at the end of the consecutive suspensions, respondent is required to 
petition for reinstatement pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(10)(C) through(G), rather 
than through the application process provided for actual suspension periods under 
Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A).  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
CUPP, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
David C. Wagner, for relator. 
 
Bruce L. Greenberger, pro se. 
______________________