Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Freedman

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Freedman, 119 Ohio St.3d 571, 2008-Ohio-5220.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. FREEDMAN. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Freedman, 
 119 Ohio St.3d 571, 2008-Ohio-5220.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Failure to refund retainer to client—Failure to 
obey suspension order—Six-month suspension. 
(No. 2008-0772 – Submitted June 24, 2008 – Decided October 14, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-045. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Steven A. Freedman of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0025528, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1976.  
On November 16, 2005, we suspended respondent’s license to practice for one 
year for professional misconduct, including his failure to file any federal, state, or 
local income tax returns for ten years, his dishonest conduct toward a client, and 
his neglect of two clients’ cases.  See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Freedman, 107 
Ohio St.3d 25, 2005-Ohio-5831, 836 N.E.2d 559.  On May 22, 2006, we found 
respondent in contempt of our order because he had not surrendered his attorney 
registration card or filed his affidavit of compliance.  Although respondent has 
since purged himself of contempt, he has not applied for reinstatement, and his 
license has not been reinstated.  He remains under a second suspension for 
noncompliance with attorney-registration requirements.  In re Attorney 
Registration Suspension [Freedman], 116 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2007-Ohio-6463, 877 
N.E.2d 305. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline now 
recommends that we again suspend respondent’s license to practice, this time for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
a six-month period to commence on the date of our order.  The board’s 
recommendation is based on findings that respondent violated ethical duties by 
failing after his 2005 suspension to return unearned fees and a case file to a client.  
We agree that respondent committed professional misconduct as found by the 
board and that a six-month suspension is appropriate. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, charged respondent in 
a two-count complaint with having violated DR 9-102(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer 
to promptly pay or deliver funds and property to which a client is entitled) and our 
order pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(8)(E)(1)(c) ordering him to repay unearned fees 
after his suspension.  A panel of the board considered the case on the parties’ 
stipulations of misconduct and joint proposal for a six-month suspension, stayed 
on the conditions that respondent comply with our suspension and contempt 
orders, and recommended that sanction.  The board adopted the panel’s findings 
of misconduct but recommended a six-month actual suspension of respondent’s 
license. 
{¶ 4} Neither party has objected to the board’s report. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} In October 2005, Margarita Santana paid respondent $1,600 in 
legal fees.  In December 2005, respondent notified Santana that he had been 
suspended from practice, but he did not refund any unearned fees.  Respondent 
also did not provide Santana’s case file, although he did offer to arrange delivery 
of the file to the client. 
{¶ 6} Santana sent respondent a letter in January 2006, asking him to 
send her a partial refund and forward her file to her new attorney.  By that time, 
respondent had changed addresses but had notified neither his client nor this 
court’s Attorney Registration Office.  He did not reply to Santana’s requests. 
{¶ 7} Santana filed a grievance with relator, and the board issued a 
formal complaint against him.  Because respondent had not updated his attorney 
January Term, 2008 
3 
registration record, the board served notice of the complaint at outdated addresses.  
Respondent did not answer timely; however, upon relator’s service of a motion 
for default at a newly discovered address, he sought and was granted leave to file 
an answer.  After answering, respondent sent Santana the requested refund and 
her file. 
{¶ 8} We accept the parties’ stipulations and find that respondent 
violated  DR 9-102(B)(4) and our order pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(8)(E)(l)(c) that 
he refund unearned fees and return client files. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} The parties also stipulated to the aggravating and mitigating factors 
that, in combination with respondent’s misconduct, the board found to warrant a 
six-month suspension.  See Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing 
Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline.  Aggravating factors include that (1) respondent has a 
prior record of discipline and did not promptly comply with that suspension order 
and (2) his failure to comply with attorney-registration requirements impeded the 
disciplinary process.  Mitigating factors include that respondent (1) did 
appropriately participate in the proceedings upon receiving the complaint against 
him, (2) has made restitution and rectified the consequences of his misconduct, 
and (3) submitted evidence of his good character and reputation apart from the 
underlying misconduct.  Also in mitigation, the parties stipulated that 
respondent’s misconduct resulted in part from the mental disability – depression – 
from which he has suffered since his first disciplinary infractions and for which 
he continues to receive treatment. 
{¶ 10} We accept the parties’ stipulations and adopt the board’s 
recommended sanction.  We suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio 
for six months, beginning on the date of this order.  To apply for reinstatement, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
respondent must comply with the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10).  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
___________________ 
Thompson Hine, L.L.P., and Laura A. Hauser; and Ellen S. Mandell, Bar 
Counsel, for relator. 
Martin H. Schiff, for respondent. 
______________________