Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Barns

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Barns, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5098.] 
 
 
 
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. 2018-OHIO-5098 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. BARNS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Barns, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-5098.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to provide competent representation to a client, failing to 
inform clients the lawyer does not maintain professional-liability insurance, 
entering into a business transaction with a client without advising the client 
of the desirability of obtaining independent legal counsel and fully 
disclosing the terms of the transaction in a writing signed by the client, and 
communicating about the subject of the lawyer’s representation with a 
person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer—Public 
reprimand. 
(No. 2018-0823—Submitted July 18, 2018—Decided December 20, 2018.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2017-058. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Stephen Wallace Barns, of Granville, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0065571, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1995. 
{¶ 2} In December 2017, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged Barns 
with professional misconduct arising from his representation of a client in the 
formation and operation of a corporation.  The parties stipulated to the admission 
of facts and misconduct, aggravating and mitigating factors, and exhibits; agreed to 
dismiss three of the eight alleged rule violations; and jointly recommended that 
Barns be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct. 
{¶ 3} After a hearing before a panel of the Board of Professional Conduct, 
the panel issued a report adopting the parties’ stipulations of facts and exhibits—
including their agreement to dismiss three alleged rule violations.  The board 
adopted the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon consideration 
of the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors and the sanctions imposed by 
this court for comparable misconduct, it recommended that we publicly reprimand 
Barns.  Neither party has objected to the board’s report and recommendation. 
{¶ 4} Based on our independent review of the record, we adopt the board’s 
findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
Background 
{¶ 5} In October 2009, Barns was a solo practitioner who promoted his law 
practice as being capable of providing legal representation in matters that included 
business formation and intellectual-property matters.  At that time, Mark Plaskow 
hired Barns to form a corporation to protect, finance, and commercialize certain 
medical intellectual property that Plaskow had created. 
{¶ 6} Barns submitted initial articles of incorporation for Plaskow’s 
company, American Health Technology Corporation (“AHT”), to the Secretary of 
State on October 5, 2009.  Plaskow and Barns were the two founding members of 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
the company.  Plaskow was the initial director and also served as the chairman of 
the board and chief technology officer.  Joseph Borovsky served as the company’s 
president and chief executive officer.  Barns served as the statutory agent and 
provided legal services to Plaskow and AHT in connection with business and 
intellectual-property matters and was issued shares of common stock in the 
company at its formation. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 7} Barns was appointed as the chief legal officer of AHT on January 1, 
2010, and served in that capacity until May 1, 2012—but Plaskow and the 
corporation were never his only clients.  Barns was responsible for all of the usual 
and customary services rendered by an attorney in that role, including the handling 
of all business and legal affairs of the corporation and the preparation, completion, 
and maintenance of AHT’s corporate records and books.  Although AHT attempted 
to comply with some of Ohio’s required corporate formalities, it did not fulfill all 
of its statutory obligations.  For example, the company held an organizational 
meeting after its incorporation, but Barns did not formally record the actions taken 
at that meeting as required by R.C. 1701.10(B) or maintain a complete set of 
corporate records and minutes as required by R.C. 1701.37.  In fact, he maintained 
just one set of minutes from AHT’s March 15, 2010 meeting.  And although the 
company issued stock, Barns did not prepare stock-subscription agreements, nor 
did he create stock certificates as required by R.C. 1701.24. 
{¶ 8} At his disciplinary hearing, Barns testified that before he represented 
Plaskow, he had never organized a corporate structure for anyone other than 
himself.  He admitted that he entered an area of law that he knew nothing about and 
in which he was not competent to practice. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 9} The parties stipulated and the board agreed that this conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a 
client). 
Count Two 
{¶ 10} In May 2011, while serving as AHT’s president and chief executive 
officer, Borovsky filed initial articles of incorporation for World Health 
Technology, Inc. (“WHT”), and issued shares of WHT stock to Barns.  Later that 
month, Plaskow decided to terminate Borovsky’s employment, and Barns drafted 
a severance agreement on behalf of AHT.  Despite knowing that Borovsky was 
represented by Borovsky’s son, who was an attorney in another state, Barns 
negotiated the terms of the severance agreement directly with Borovsky.  He also 
executed a stock-swap agreement with Borovsky, which provided that he would 
transfer his WHT stock to Borovsky in exchange for Borovsky’s shares of AHT 
stock. 
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R.  4.2 
(prohibiting a lawyer from communicating about the subject of the representation 
with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer unless the 
lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law or a court order). 
Count Three 
{¶ 12} In late 2011, Barns drafted and entered into an agreement with AHT 
under which he became an employee of the company.  The agreement provided that 
he would receive a salary from the company as compensation for his work as the 
chief legal officer and that he would continue to be paid separately for legal services 
related to patent applications requested by Plaskow and AHT.  Despite the existence 
of that contract, the company never paid Barns a salary.  Instead, he continued to 
bill the company through his law firm, and he was paid as an independent 
contractor.  Barns also received shares of AHT stock as compensation for his work 
at the company, but he did not provide AHT with written confirmation of the terms 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
of that compensation or the desirability of seeking the advice of independent 
counsel regarding the transaction, nor did he obtain the company’s informed 
consent to the essential terms of the transaction in writing.  The parties and board 
agreed that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
entering into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquiring an 
ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest that is adverse to a client 
unless the client is advised in writing of the desirability of obtaining independent 
legal counsel and the terms of the transaction are fair, reasonable, and fully 
disclosed in a writing signed by the client). 
Count Four 
{¶ 13} When Plaskow initially retained Barns in 2009, Barns maintained 
professional-liability insurance.  At some point during that representation, Barns’s 
coverage lapsed, but he failed to notify his existing clients, including Plaskow and 
AHT, of that fact.  He also failed to notify new clients that he did not carry 
professional-liability insurance.  Barns admits that his conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not 
maintain professional-liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence and 
$300,000 in the aggregate and obtain a signed acknowledgment of that notice from 
the client) and 1.4(c)(1) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a copy of a client’s signed 
acknowledgment that the attorney does not maintain professional-liability 
insurance for five years after the termination of the representation of the client). 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 14} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 15} The sole aggravating factor present is that Barns committed multiple 
offenses.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4).  As mitigating factors, the parties stipulated 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
and the board agreed that Barns has no prior discipline, did not act with a dishonest 
motive, demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, 
and submitted five letters attesting to his good character.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(1), (2), (4), and (5).  The board also noted that Barns settled a malpractice 
action that Plaskow brought against him and that he owes no restitution as a result 
of his misconduct. 
{¶ 16} The board recommends that we adopt the parties’ stipulated sanction 
and publicly reprimand Barns for his misconduct.  To support that recommendation, 
the board cited six cases in which we publicly reprimanded attorneys who engaged 
in comparable misconduct.  For example, in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bhatt, 133 Ohio 
St.3d 131, 2012-Ohio-4230, 976 N.E.2d 870, we publicly reprimanded an attorney 
who neglected the legal matters of two clients, failed to keep those clients 
reasonably informed about the status of their legal matters, and failed to notify them 
that his professional-liability insurance had lapsed for several months during his 
representation of them. 
{¶ 17} In Akron Bar Assn. v. Freedman, 128 Ohio St.3d 497, 2011-Ohio-
1959, 946 N.E.2d 753, we publicly reprimanded an attorney who failed to 
reasonably communicate with a husband and wife who were his clients, failed to 
inform them that he did not maintain professional-liability insurance, and failed to 
advise them that they might be entitled to a refund of all or part of their flat fee. 
{¶ 18} And in Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Godles, 128 Ohio St.3d 279, 2010-
Ohio-6274, 943 N.E.2d 988, we publicly reprimanded an attorney who failed to 
keep a client informed about the status of the client’s legal matter, failed to explain 
matters to the extent necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions 
regarding the representation, failed to promptly respond to the client’s reasonable 
requests for information, and failed to inform the client that the attorney did not 
maintain professional-liability insurance. 
January Term, 2018 
 
7
{¶ 19} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and agree that Barns’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.4(c), 1.4(c)(1), 1.8(a), and 4.2.  Having considered the 
single aggravating factor, multiple mitigating factors, and the sanctions we have 
imposed for comparable misconduct, we agree that a public reprimand is the 
appropriate sanction in this case. 
{¶ 20} Accordingly, Stephen Wallace Barns is publicly reprimanded for the 
above- described misconduct.  Costs are taxed to Barns. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
FISCHER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and DEGENARO, J. 
_________________ 
 
FISCHER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
{¶ 21} I join the court’s decision to publicly reprimand respondent, but I 
respectfully dissent in part.  In most similar situations, I would agree that a public 
reprimand alone would be the correct sanction.  However, because a significant 
portion of respondent’s misconduct was premised upon his lack of familiarity with 
corporate law, I believe that a public reprimand, without more, is not sufficient.  
Given the continued relevance of corporate law to respondent’s practice area and 
the fact that competent attorneys should possess a general knowledge of corporate 
law, I would order that respondent complete continuing legal education (“CLE”) in 
the subjects of basic corporation law and ethical duties to corporate constituent 
groups. 
{¶ 22} In Ohio, the law of business associations, and specifically 
corporations, is a subject tested on the state’s bar examination, both in the bar 
examination’s current format and in its upcoming Uniform Bar Examination 
format.  See Outline of Subjects Tested On Essay Portion of Ohio Bar Examination 
(2002), 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/AttySvcs/admissions/PDF/essay_subjects.pdf 
(accessed Dec.17, 2018); Understanding the Uniform Bar Examination (2017), 
http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=%2Fdmsdocument%2F209 (accessed Dec. 
17, 2018).  The law of business associations and corporations is not an unusual or 
overly specialized area of the law, and by placing that subject on the bar exam, this 
court has directed that all attorneys licensed in the state should have a basic 
understanding of that area. 
{¶ 23} In this case, respondent admitted that he knew nothing about 
corporate law and was not competent to practice in the area.  Although respondent 
claims that he will not practice corporate law in the future, his abject lack of 
understanding of the basic legal and statutory requirements regarding corporations 
clearly could have a direct and important impact on those who may hire him in the 
future to do intellectual-property work.  Not just individuals, but corporations, 
limited-liability companies, partnerships, and other business associations own 
intellectual-property rights.  Thus respondent may need competency in this area 
either to give appropriate advice and counsel to his intellectual-property clients or 
to advise an intellectual-property client to seek additional advice from an attorney 
well-versed in corporate law.  I accordingly believe that the sanction of public 
reprimand is insufficient, standing alone, to both protect the public and ensure that 
respondent is competent to practice law in Ohio. 
{¶ 24} On certain occasions when the court has publicly reprimanded 
attorneys, the court has also ordered those attorneys to fulfill particular 
requirements.  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Gilmartin, 62 Ohio St.3d 10, 577 N.E.2d 
350 (1991) (publicly reprimanding an attorney and ordering that attorney to make 
full restitution within 60 days of the order); Columbus Bar Assn. v. Shay, 105 Ohio 
St.3d 437, 2005-Ohio-2590, 828 N.E.2d 105 (publicly reprimanding an attorney 
and ordering the attorney to refund the affected client’s fee).  This case is another 
January Term, 2018 
 
9
instance in which this court should order an attorney to fulfill an additional 
requirement. 
{¶ 25} Given the specific nature of respondent’s misconduct in this case, I 
would publicly reprimand him and also order that within six months of this 
decision, he attend a minimum of eight hours of CLE on the subjects of basic 
corporation law and ethical duties to corporate constituent groups.  I accordingly 
concur in part and dissent in part. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and DEGENARO, J., concur in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________ 
Loveland Law, L.L.C., and William L. Loveland; and Lori J. Brown, Bar 
Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, L.P.A., and Jonathan E. Coughlan, for 
respondent. 
_________________