Title: Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Foster

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Foster, 99 Ohio St.3d 491, 2003-Ohio-4130.] 
 
 
BUTLER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. FOSTER. 
[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Foster, 99 Ohio St.3d 491, 2003-Ohio-4130.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with sanction stayed on 
condition that no other professional misconduct be committed during the 
suspension period — During antagonistic collection proceedings 
directing unprofessional e-mails and other correspondence to the older 
brother of a pro se litigant. 
(No. 2003-0726 — Submitted June 4, 2003 — Decided August 20, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-75. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Mark S. Foster of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0001884, was admitted to the Ohio bar in November 1980.  On 
October 7, 2002, relator, Butler County Bar Association, charged respondent with 
several violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause on 
the parties’ agreed stipulations and respondent’s statement of mitigation. 
{¶2} 
The stipulations established that during antagonistic collection 
proceedings, respondent directed certain unprofessional e-mails and other 
correspondence to the older brother of a pro se litigant.  In an August 21, 2000 
transmission, respondent threatened: “Your dear little brother only serves to make 
my life more miserable.  In turn, I will make his as miserable as possible.”  In a 
July 11, 2001 letter, he asked whether the brother’s family had “been * * * 
seriously inbreed [sic] in the last few generations” and observed that the family’s 
“gene pool [was] in serious need of a filter, at best, or has been reduced to a gene 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
pond.”  On July 13, 2001, respondent described the brother in a letter as an 
“anencephalic cretin” with a “single operating brain cell” whose “brain-dead 
ravings” and “anal rantings” were characteristic of the “lunatic fringe.”  
Respondent also enjoined the brother: “Next time you get your panties all in a 
wad, please copulate independently.” 
{¶3} 
The parties stipulated and the panel found that this conduct, among 
some of respondent’s other vilifications, violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely 
reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice law), 7-101(A)(1) (failure to seek 
client’s lawful objectives through reasonably available permissible means), and 7-
102(A)(1) (legal action taken to harass or maliciously injure another). 
{¶4} 
In recommending a sanction, the panel considered letters from the 
judiciary assuring that respondent ordinarily practiced in a professional and 
competent manner and that this episode was an isolated instance.  The panel also 
considered that respondent had no prior disciplinary record and was willing to 
accept the consequences of his actions.  However, the panel also expressed 
concern over respondent’s lack of remorse and appreciation for the fact that he is 
bound by rules of civility and professionalism that the laity is not. 
{¶5} 
The panel thus rejected the parties’ suggestion that respondent 
receive a public reprimand and recommended that he be suspended from the 
practice of law for six months, with the entire period stayed.  The board adopted 
the panel’s findings of misconduct and its recommendation. 
{¶6} 
We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 
7-101(A)(1), and 7-102(A)(1).  In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Riebel (1982), 69 Ohio 
St.2d 290, 292, 23 O.O.3d 279, 432 N.E.2d 165, where an attorney used offensive 
and abusive language against opposing counsel and his client, we said: 
{¶7} 
"It is within the real meaning and intent of our Code of 
Professional Responsibility that lawyers should always be cognizant of the 
January Term, 2003 
3 
necessity for good manners, courtesy and discourse, both to client and other 
practitioners, as being part of our professional ethics. 
{¶8} 
"The zeal employed by an attorney in guarding the interests of his 
clients must always be tempered so as not to inject his personal feelings or display 
a demeanor that subjects parties to a proceeding or opposing counsel to certain 
indignities." 
{¶9} 
Respondent’s conduct might have been a reaction to aggressive 
behavior; as a lawyer, however, he is not permitted to respond in kind.  “Part of 
the role of an attorney is to remove himself from the emotions of the moment and 
provide objective counsel and representation to clients.  To perform that role, 
attorneys must hold themselves to the highest standards of professionalism.”  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 386, 388, 704 N.E.2d 246. 
{¶10} In Riebel and Jackson, we issued the offending attorneys public 
reprimands. Here, however, because respondent’s conduct displays a pattern of 
escalating abusive language, we consider the recommended six-month stayed 
sanction appropriate.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for six months, but this sanction is stayed provided that he 
does not commit any other professional misconduct during the suspension period.  
If respondent violates this condition, the stay will be lifted and respondent will 
serve the entire six-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Gregory K. Pratt, for relator. 
 
Mark S. Foster, pro se. 
__________________