Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Binger

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Binger, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2114.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-2114 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. BINGER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. Binger, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2114.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Notarizing documents without witnessing signatures—
Failing to advise client of lack of professional liability insurance—18-
month suspension, stayed on condition. 
(No. 2013-1263—Submitted October 9, 2013—Decided May 22, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2012-064. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Trent Allen Binger of Munroe Falls, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0073995, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001. 
{¶ 2} On August 6, 2012, a probable-cause panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline certified a two-count complaint 
against Binger to the board.  In Count I of that complaint, relator, Akron Bar 
Association, alleged that Binger had engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice 
law by notarizing documents without having witnessed the signatures.  Count II 
alleged that Binger had failed to advise a client that he did not maintain 
professional liability insurance.  Binger admitted to both counts of misconduct in 
his answer. 
{¶ 3} Relator later amended its complaint to add two new counts.  Count 
III alleged that Binger failed to comply with the continuing-legal-education 
(“CLE”) requirements of Gov.Bar R. X.  Count IV alleged that Binger failed to 
keep this court’s Office of Attorney Services apprised of his current residence and 
office addresses as required by Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D). 
{¶ 4} The parties submitted joint stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors and stipulated to the dismissal of Counts III 
and IV of the amended complaint.1  The panel also heard testimony from Binger 
and Rhonda G. Davis, an attorney who served on the panel assigned by relator to 
investigate Binger’s alleged misconduct. 
{¶ 5} The panel issued a report rejecting the parties’ stipulations, finding 
by clear and convincing evidence that Binger had engaged in the misconduct 
charged in Counts I and II of the complaint, but purported to dismiss Counts III 
and IV.2  The panel recommended that Binger be suspended from the practice of 
                                                 
1 Although the stipulations are referred to throughout the hearing and in the panel and board 
reports, they were not transmitted to this court as part of the record. 
 
2 Gov.Bar R. V(6)(G) permits a unanimous panel of the board to order the dismissal of a count 
without referring the matter to the board or this court for review, but it requires the panel to 
provide notice to counsel of record and other interested parties.  Without that notice, the dismissal 
is not effective.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Doellman, 127 Ohio St.3d 411, 2010-Ohio-5990, 940 
N.E.2d 928, ¶ 31. The record in this case does not establish that the panel complied with the notice 
requirements of that rule. Instead, the panel certified its findings of fact and recommendations to 
the board in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(6)(H) and (I).  Because the board did not order 
dismissal and provide the notices required by Gov.Bar R. V(6)(J), we treat the purported dismissal 
as a recommendation that Counts III and IV be dismissed.  See, e.g., In re Complaint Against 
Harper, 77 Ohio St.3d 211, 216, 673 N.E.2d 1253 (1996); Doellman at ¶ 31-33.  
 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
law in Ohio for six months, all stayed on the conditions that he engage in no 
further misconduct, enroll in a mentoring program, and serve one year of 
probation.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommended sanction. 
{¶ 6} Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we adopt the board’s 
findings of fact and misconduct and dismiss Counts III and IV of relator’s 
amended complaint.  In light of significant aggravating factors, we conclude that 
an 18-month suspension, all stayed on condition, is the appropriate sanction for 
Binger’s misconduct. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 7} Binger prepared a petition for dissolution of marriage and waiver 
of service of summons and gave them to his client, Georgie M. Herro, to give to 
his wife for her signature.  Mr. Herro returned the signed documents to Binger, 
who admits that he notarized Mrs. Herro’s signatures without having witnessed 
them.3  The board found that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  We adopt 
these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Count II 
{¶ 8} In his answer and testimony, Binger admitted that he did not 
maintain professional liability insurance while he represented Herro and that he 
did not notify Herro of that fact or have him acknowledge it in writing.  He stated, 
however, that he had placed a sign in his office stating that he was a self-insured 
attorney.  The board found that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) 
                                                 
3 Binger testified, and relator’s counsel confirmed, that Mrs. Herro ultimately acknowledged that 
the signatures on the documents in question were her own.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
(requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not maintain 
professional liability insurance and obtain a signed acknowledgment of that notice 
from the client).  We agree and adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Count III 
{¶ 9} In Count III of the amended complaint, relator alleged that by 
failing to timely complete and report at least 24 hours of CLE in the 2006-2007, 
2008-2009, and 2010-2011 biennia, Binger violated Gov.Bar R. X(3)(A) 
(requiring each attorney admitted to the practice of law in Ohio to complete a 
minimum of 24 credit hours of CLE for each biennial compliance period) and that 
he failed to come into compliance after receiving notice of noncompliance under 
Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B) (now Gov.Bar R. X(18)(B)).  Relator further alleged that 
Binger has been fined and suspended by the Commission on Continuing Legal 
Education for his noncompliance on at least one occasion. 
{¶ 10} The orders of the CLE Commission reflect that Binger has 
previously been sanctioned for the misconduct alleged in Count III of relator’s 
amended complaint on three occasions.  See 120 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2008-Ohio-
6326, 897 N.E.2d 662 (imposing a monetary sanction of $570 for not completing 
the 2006-2007 CLE hours required by Gov.Bar R. X(3) and not filing evidence of 
compliance or coming into compliance despite receiving notice of noncompliance 
under Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)); In re Continuing Legal Education Sanction of Binger, 
127 Ohio St.3d 1467, 2010-Ohio-6302, 938 N.E.2d 368 (imposing a monetary 
sanction of $600 for the same violations in 2008-2009); and In re Continuing 
Legal Edn. Suspension of Binger, 133 Ohio St.3d 1472, 2012-Ohio-5238, 978 
N.E.2d 198 (imposing a monetary sanction of $600 for the same violations in 
2010-2011 and suspending Binger from the practice of law in Ohio effective 
November 13, 2012).  On November 20, 2012, we reinstated Binger to the 
practice of law.  In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Binger, 133 Ohio 
St.3d 1483, 2012-Ohio-5368, 978 N.E.2d 208.  Thus, Binger has already been 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
sanctioned for the CLE violations charged in Count III of relator’s complaint and 
cannot be sanctioned a second time for the same misconduct.  Therefore, we 
dismiss Count III of relator’s amended complaint. 
{¶ 11} Furthermore, Gov.Bar R. X(5)(C) provides, “A sanction imposed 
under this section [for noncompliance with CLE requirements] shall not be 
considered in the imposition of a sanction under Gov.Bar R. V, Section 8 [for 
attorney or judicial misconduct].”   Therefore, the fact that Binger has been 
previously sanctioned for his failure to comply with the CLE requirements of 
Gov.Bar R. X cannot be considered as an aggravating factor in imposing a 
sanction for his present misconduct. 
Count IV 
{¶ 12} Count IV of relator’s amended complaint alleged that Binger failed 
to keep the Office of Attorney Services apprised of his current residence and 
office addresses as required by Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D) during relator’s investigation 
and throughout his 2012 CLE suspension.  However, relator did not present clear 
and convincing evidence to establish that the addresses on file with this court 
were not accurate.  Therefore, we dismiss Count IV of relator’s amended 
complaint. 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 14} The board found that Binger’s multiple offenses, BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(d), failure to timely comply with the CLE requirements of Gov.Bar R. 
X, and his failure to keep this court apprised of his residential and office 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
addresses were aggravating factors weighing in favor of a harsher sanction, as 
they suggest a pattern of lack of attention to important administrative matters.  In 
mitigation, the board found that Binger has no prior disciplinary record, did not 
act with a dishonest or selfish motive, and cooperated fully in the proceedings.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (d). 
{¶ 15} Relator recommended that Binger be suspended for six months, all 
stayed on the conditions that he submit to a monitor and bring his CLE hours into 
compliance.  In considering that recommendation, the board cited cases in which 
we imposed sanctions ranging from a public reprimand to a six-month stayed 
suspension for misconduct involving the improper notarization of documents or 
failure to notify clients of the attorney’s lack of malpractice insurance.  See 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Craig, 131 Ohio St.3d 364, 2012-Ohio-1083, 965 N.E.2d 
287 (adopting a consent-to-discipline agreement and imposing a public reprimand 
for an attorney who forged his client’s signature on an affidavit, notarized the 
document, and filed it with the recorder’s office); Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Koehler, 132 Ohio St.3d 465, 2012-Ohio-3235, 973 N.E.2d 262 (imposing a 
stayed six-month suspension for an attorney who showed no remorse for having 
forged his client’s name on an affidavit, and then falsely notarizing the document 
by signing his secretary’s name and using her notary stamp); and Akron Bar Assn. 
v. DeLoach, 133 Ohio St.3d 329, 2012-Ohio-4629, 978 N.E.2d 181 (publicly 
reprimanding an attorney, in the presence of significant mitigating evidence, for 
failing to notify clients that she did not maintain professional liability insurance). 
{¶ 16} The board concluded that improperly notarizing a document or 
failing to notify a client regarding the attorney’s lack of professional liability 
insurance would typically result in a public reprimand.  But, expressing concern 
that Binger would continue to neglect important administrative matters, the board 
recommends that we impose a six-month suspension, all stayed on the conditions 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
that Binger engage in no further misconduct, serve one year of monitored 
probation, and enroll in a mentoring program. 
{¶ 17} We agree that Binger has committed multiple offenses—an 
aggravating factor pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d).  As discussed above, 
however, Binger’s previous sanctions for failure to comply with the CLE 
requirements of Gov.Bar R. X cannot be considered in imposing a sanction for his 
current misconduct.  Moreover, relator did not show by clear and convincing 
evidence that Binger failed to keep the Office of Attorney Services apprised of his 
current addresses.  Therefore, we do not consider these factors in aggravation. 
{¶ 18} We also find that with respect to Count II, Binger not only failed to 
notify his clients of the fact that he did not carry professional liability insurance, 
but he expressly represented to them that he was “self-insured.”  “Self-insurance” 
is “[a] plan under which a business maintains its own special fund to cover any 
loss.”  Black’s Law Dictionary 875 (9th Ed.2009).  Binger testified that in stating 
that he was self-insured, he meant that he had no insurance, and if something were 
to happen, his clients could sue him personally.  He was unaware of any pending 
claims against him. 
{¶ 19} While Binger stated that he was just following the example of 
another firm he had worked for, he also stated that it was his intention to make 
potential clients comfortable with the fact that he did not have professional 
liability insurance.  On these facts, we find that Binger not only failed to notify 
his clients of the fact that he did not carry insurance, but he also affirmatively 
represented to them that he was self-insured, with resources set aside to cover his 
professional liabilities, when that was not true. 
{¶ 20} Binger has also engaged in a pattern of misconduct in this regard, 
given his testimony that he (1) has filed over 1,000 cases in his career, (2) did not 
carry professional liability insurance from the time he commenced his solo 
practice in 2004 until he finally obtained coverage in June 2012, and (3) relied on 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
a sign stating that he was self-insured to inform his clients of his uninsured status, 
discussing the issue with them only if they brought it up.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(c).  Fortunately, it does not appear that any clients were harmed as a 
result of this misconduct. 
{¶ 21} As mitigating factors, we find that Binger does not have a prior 
disciplinary record, has made full and free disclosure to the board, and 
demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  We also note that he has obtained 
professional liability insurance and moved from a back office in an isolated 
location to a busier building with more tenants in an attempt to escape his 
“cocoon.”  He has also spoken with two attorneys who he reports have expressed 
their willingness to serve as informal mentors for him once this disciplinary action 
concludes.  While he has always had fee agreements for his bankruptcy clients, he 
has started preparing fee agreements for domestic-relations clients as well.  
Binger states that he has come to realize that he cannot “stand still” any more, and 
if his financial situation does not improve, he is open to the possibility of seeking 
a job with a firm where there would be more structure and oversight.  Although he 
was described as having a “flat affect” during the investigation, the board found 
that he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct and  acknowledged that his 
decision to notarize the Herro documents was careless and that his insurance 
violation was unprofessional and the result of bad judgment. 
{¶ 22} We have held that misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation generally warrants an actual suspension from the practice of 
law.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Karris, 129 Ohio St.3d 499, 2011-Ohio-4243, 954 
N.E.2d 118, ¶ 16, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraemer, 126 Ohio St.3d 163, 
2010-Ohio-3300, 931 N.E.2d 571, ¶ 13; Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 
Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237 (1995), syllabus.  As illustrated by the cases the 
board cited in support of its recommended sanction, however, we have typically 
January Term, 2014 
9 
 
imposed lesser sanctions of public reprimands or six-month fully stayed 
suspensions for isolated notary offenses like Binger’s.  See Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Craig, 131 Ohio St.3d 364, 2012-Ohio-1083, 965 N.E.2d 287; Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Koehler, 132 Ohio St.3d 465, 2012-Ohio-3235, 973 N.E.2d 262. 
{¶ 23} Binger’s conduct is more serious than the conduct at issue in those 
cases because his misconduct went beyond notarizing documents that were not 
signed in his presence.  He also led his clients to believe that he was self-insured, 
rather than uninsured, for a significant period of time.  Thus, we conclude that 
Binger’s misconduct warrants a greater sanction than the six-month fully stayed 
suspension recommended by relator.  We believe that an 18-month suspension, all 
stayed on the condition that Binger commit no further misconduct, will 
adequately protect the public from future misconduct.  We encourage Binger to 
seek out more experienced attorneys to assist and mentor him as he seeks to 
expand his practice into new areas of the law.  However, we do not believe that 
Binger’s misconduct warrants the imposition of monitored probation. 
{¶ 24} Accordingly, Trent Allen Binger is suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for 18 months, all stayed on the condition that he engage in no further 
misconduct.  Costs are taxed to Binger. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and 
O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
FRENCH, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. 
____________________ 
FRENCH, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
{¶ 25} I concur in the sanction but I would order Binger to serve 
monitored probation for the duration of the 18-month stayed suspension. 
____________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
Davis & Young, L.P.A., and Ann Marie O’Brien; and Rhonda Davis & 
Associates, L.L.C., and Rhonda Gail Davis, for relator. 
Trent Allen Binger, pro se. 
_________________________