Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BROWN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Failing to comply with 
orders of Supreme Court from prior disciplinary suspension — Continuing 
to practice law while suspended. 
(No. 98-399 — Submitted July 8, 1998 — Decided November 10, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-104. 
 
In May 1985, we suspended respondent, Paul Raymond Brown of 
Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0037693, from the practice of law for 
one year.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Brown (1985), 16 Ohio St.3d 29, 16 OBR 409, 
476 N.E.2d 654.  In August 1995, we fined respondent $340 and suspended him 
from the practice of law for failure to comply with the continuing legal education 
requirements of Gov.Bar R. X for the 1992-1993 reporting period.  That order 
required respondent to notify all of his clients of his suspension, to deliver to his 
clients all of their papers and property that he might have in his possession, to 
refund to his clients any unearned fees, to give notice of his disqualification to 
opposing counsel in all his pending cases and to all courts and agencies where he 
was involved in pending litigation, to accomplish all these actions by certified 
mail where appropriate, to maintain a record of all these actions, and to file an 
affidavit with the Clerk of this court and Disciplinary Counsel indicating that all 
of these actions had been accomplished. 
 
In September 1995, respondent filed an affidavit with the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court, representing that he had “complied with the order of the Court 
within the case.”  The affidavit was accompanied by twenty-one undated certified 
mail receipts, indicating that these were the only notices required by the order.  In 
 
2
December 1995, we ordered that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law.  
In re Report of the Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn. (Paul Raymond Brown) 
(1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1487, 658 N.E.2d 305. 
 
However, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, investigated and found 
that respondent failed to notify all of his clients of his suspension and failed to 
accomplish any of the other actions required by our August 1995 order.  
Moreover, during the period he was suspended from the practice of law, 
respondent continued to represent seven clients in the common pleas court and ten 
clients in the municipal court.  In addition, for four of the five biennia from 1987 
through 1997, respondent failed to register timely with the Clerk of the Supreme 
Court as required by Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A). 
 
On December 9, 1996, relator filed a complaint charging that respondent’s 
conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects 
upon the attorney’s fitness to practice law), and 3-101(B) (practicing in a 
jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of the regulations of the 
profession in that jurisdiction).  Relator also charged that respondent’s failure to 
file timely Certificates of Registration was a violation of Gov.Bar R. VI(1) and 
(3).  The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel received the stipulations of the parties and held a hearing at 
which respondent submitted evidence that his failure to comply with the orders of 
this court was a result of his partial dependence upon alcohol.  Respondent also 
submitted evidence that he had entered the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
(“OLAP”) in July 1997 and is currently in compliance with his contract and in 
good standing with OLAP.  The panel found the facts as stipulated and concluded 
 
3
that respondent had violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged and had engaged in 
the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Gov.Bar R. VII.  In view of 
respondent’s attempts at rehabilitation, the panel recommended that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law for two years with the second year of the 
suspension stayed.  The board accepted the findings and conclusions of the panel, 
but due to respondent’s prior disciplinary suspension and his continued practice 
while suspended, recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law.  It further recommended that evidence of OLAP compliance be 
a condition to his reinstatement to the practice of law. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, Kevin L. Williams and Lori J. 
Brown, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
James J. Chester, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings of the board and its conclusions that 
respondent violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged.  Respondent is hereby 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  A condition of respondent’s 
possible reinstatement will be evidence of compliance with his contract with 
OLAP.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., would suspend respondent for 
two years with one year stayed.