Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Frenden

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Frenden, 114 Ohio St.3d 236, 2007-Ohio-3676.] 
 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. FRENDEN. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Frenden, 
 114 Ohio St.3d 236, 2007-Ohio-3676.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to maintain sufficient professional 
liability insurance or disclose that such insurance is not maintained — 
Failure to seek the lawful objectives of a client — Failure to carry out a 
contract of employment — Intentionally prejudicing or damaging a client 
during a professional relationship — One-year suspension, with six 
months stayed. 
(No. 2007-0321 — Submitted April 17, 2007 — Decided July 25, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-027. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, John A. Frenden of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0031512, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1964.  
This court publicly reprimanded respondent in 1985 in Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Frenden (May 8, 1985), No. DD 85-2 (unreported).  More recently, we suspended 
respondent from the practice of law for six months because he failed to apprise 
the judge at a probation revocation hearing that his client, who was also under 
police investigation in another jurisdiction, had another pending criminal concern.  
See Disciplinary Counsel v. Frenden (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 601, 660 N.E.2d 
1152.  We reinstated respondent’s license on October 10, 1996.  See Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Frenden (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1206, 671 N.E.2d 260. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends that we now suspend respondent’s license to practice for one year, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
but conditionally stay the entire suspension, based on findings that he failed to 
provide the representation he promised to two clients and also failed to disclose to 
those clients and to a third client that he did not maintain professional liability 
insurance.  On review, we agree that respondent violated the Code of Professional 
Responsibility as found by the board.  In view of his multiple offenses and prior 
disciplinary record, however, we find the recommended sanction too lenient.  We 
therefore order a one-year suspension of respondent’s license with a stay of only 
the last six months. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, and respondent 
stipulated to various disciplinary violations and jointly proposed a one-year stayed 
suspension of respondent’s license.  A panel of the board heard the cause and then 
found most of the stipulated misconduct, as well as a violation to which the 
parties had not stipulated.  The panel recommended a one-year stayed suspension, 
and the board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
Misconduct 
The Brooks Case 
{¶ 4} In October 2004, after receiving a traffic ticket in North Carolina, 
Mary Brooks asked respondent to contact authorities in that state to find out how 
much she owed in fines and to arrange payment.  She paid respondent $125 for 
this service.  Respondent sent a letter to the relevant clerk of courts on Brooks’s 
behalf, but he did not arrange for payment of the ticket, which carried a $100 fine, 
on time.  Respondent also failed to advise Brooks that he did not carry 
professional liability insurance. 
{¶ 5} Respondent thereby violated DR 1-104(A), (B), and (C) (requiring 
a lawyer to carry professional liability insurance or to advise the client that he 
does not), 7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to seek the 
lawful objectives of a client), 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment), and 7-101(A)(3) 
January Term, 2007 
3 
(prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally prejudicing or damaging a client during a 
professional relationship). 
The Crocheron Case 
{¶ 6} Catherine Crocheron retained respondent in November 2005 to 
open a probate estate with respect to her deceased husband.  She paid respondent 
$180 to cover court costs, but respondent later realized that he needed $20 more 
to open the estate in probate court.  Respondent failed to communicate this 
shortfall to Crocheron and also failed to open the estate.  Respondent also failed 
to advise Crocheron that he did not carry professional liability insurance.  
Respondent voluntarily refunded Crocheron’s $180. 
{¶ 7} Respondent thereby violated DR 1-104(A), (B), and (C), 7-
101(A)(1), and 7-101(A)(2). 
The Minor Case 
{¶ 8} Tanya Minor retained respondent in May 2005 to defend her son 
against criminal charges in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.  Eight or 
nine months later, Minor discharged respondent and retained another lawyer.  
From the time he was hired until his discharge, respondent did not maintain 
professional liability insurance, and he did not tell his client that he did not.  
Respondent thereby violated DR 1-104(A), (B), and (C). 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} As conditions for the proposed one-year suspension and stay, the 
parties suggested that respondent be required to take courses in law-office 
management and to improve, under the auspices of a monitoring attorney, his 
office-management practices. 
{¶ 10} The panel and board identified the aggravating and mitigating 
factors in respondent’s case.  See Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
aggravating factors included respondent’s previous disciplinary record and the 
fact that he had committed multiple offenses by mishandling more than one 
client’s affairs.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a) and (d).  The mitigating factors 
were that respondent acted improperly but not dishonestly or with a selfish 
motive, he made timely, good-faith restitution, and he cooperated in the 
disciplinary proceeding with full and free disclosure.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(b), (c), and (d). 
{¶ 11} We have been told that respondent has obtained professional 
liability insurance sufficient to bring him into compliance with DR 1-104, but we 
are troubled by respondent’s disciplinary history and his inattention to detail.  The 
board concluded that respondent’s problems are largely due to inadequate 
administrative oversight in his office; however, this is no excuse for a seasoned 
practitioner.  Respondent is not a fledgling attorney – he has been in practice for 
more than 40 years, and he is now before us on disciplinary charges for the third 
time.  Accordingly, a sanction stricter than that recommended by the board is 
appropriate. 
{¶ 12} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for one year; however, we order a stay of the last six months of the 
suspension on the conditions that respondent commit no further misconduct and 
that he complete at least three hours of continuing legal education in law-office 
management and an additional two hours in professional ethics during that period 
of actual suspension.  If respondent fails to comply with the terms of the stay, the 
stay will be lifted, and he will serve the entire one-year suspension. 
{¶ 13} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., O’CONNOR, LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent and would 
impose a 12-month stayed suspension. 
January Term, 2007 
5 
__________________ 
 
Fred C. Crosby, Stanley E. Stein, and Ellen S. Mandell, Bar Counsel, for 
relator. 
 
John B. Frenden, for respondent. 
______________________