Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Britt

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Britt, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4541.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-4541 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. BRITT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Britt,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4541.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to provide competent representation—Failure to 
act with reasonable diligence in representing client—Charging an 
excessive fee—Failure to properly supervise staff—Failure to hold fees in 
trust account until earned—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2011-2043—Submitted March 21, 2012—Decided October 3, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-048. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Curtis D. Britt of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No. 0070966, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1999.  In March 
2007, he was also admitted to the bar in Kentucky.  Although his Kentucky 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
license was suspended from December 2008 to November 2009 for nonpayment 
of his bar dues, that license is now in good standing.1   
{¶ 2} In June 2010, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged Britt 
with multiple violations of the rules of professional conduct arising from his 
handling of a client’s bankruptcy matter.  In a second amended complaint, relator 
further alleged that Britt had collected retainers and filing fees from more than 40 
clients, converted those funds, and failed to perform the promised services and 
that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) had obtained levies against him for 
past-due employee tax withholdings. 
{¶ 3} The parties stipulated that Britt neglected numerous client matters; 
failed to reasonably communicate with his clients; failed to preserve the identity 
of client funds and property; and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation and conduct that was prejudicial to the administration 
of justice by converting those funds to his own use and that his conduct adversely 
reflects on his fitness to practice law. 
{¶ 4} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline adopted the parties’ stipulations of fact and misconduct.  After a 
hearing, where the panel heard Britt’s testimony and received exhibits, the panel 
recommended that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio 
and ordered to make full restitution to those clients affected by his misconduct.  
The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety. 
{¶ 5} Relator objects to the board’s recommended sanction, arguing that 
Britt’s conduct warrants permanent disbarment.  For the reasons that follow, we 
overrule relator’s objection, adopt the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommended sanction with the additional requirements that Britt complete 
                                                 
1 It appears, however, that Britt has a nonpractice exemption for which he has voluntarily agreed 
not to practice law in Kentucky until the exemption is removed by the Continuing Legal Education 
Commission upon certification of completion of appropriate continuing-legal-education credit 
hours.  See http://www.kybar.org/26 (accessed August 23, 2012). 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
12 hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) in law-office and trust-account 
management and that he serve one year of monitored probation upon his 
reinstatement to the practice of law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 6} With respect to Count One, the parties stipulated and the board 
found that Sonya Weaver met Britt through Total Bankruptcy, a website that 
provided bankruptcy client referrals for a fee.  At her first appointment, Weaver 
met Britt’s employee, Kenneth Cooper, who, although he was not an attorney, 
told her that she would qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy notwithstanding her 
ownership interest in three time-share properties.  Cooper also advised her to stop 
paying her credit-card bills and quit her part-time job, which she did. 
{¶ 7} At that February 6, 2009 appointment, Weaver signed a fee 
agreement that required her to pay a $1,000 flat fee plus filing fees, and within 
several weeks she wrote two checks to Britt for a total of $1,424.  By early 
March, she had returned her completed paperwork and bank records to Britt’s 
office and completed an online credit-counseling course.  At her first meeting 
with Britt in April 2009, he informed her that Chapter 7 bankruptcy might not be 
a viable option, given her ownership interest in certain property, including the 
time-share properties she had disclosed to Cooper, but that he needed additional 
information to make a final determination. 
{¶ 8} At a brief meeting several days later, Britt reviewed Weaver’s 
documents and confirmed that Chapter 7 bankruptcy was not a viable option.  
When Weaver expressed dissatisfaction because she had relied on Cooper’s 
flawed advice and was two months behind in her credit-card payments, Britt 
suggested that she contact her creditors to set up a payment plan. 
{¶ 9} On April 30, 2009, Weaver sent Britt a certified letter terminating 
his representation and requesting the return of her file, an itemized statement of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
the legal services rendered, and the return of any unearned fees.  Approximately 
one month later, Britt sent her a $499 check—$299 for the filing fee and $200 for 
unearned legal fees—but he failed to provide an itemized statement of the 
services provided and failed to return her file.  He had not kept any 
contemporaneous time records in Weaver’s case, but in responding to relator’s 
inquiries, he maintained that he had earned $925 for two hours of direct 
consultation with Weaver and one hour of file review, billed at $225 per hour, 
$150 for administrative work performed by his assistant, and a $50 
reimbursement for Weaver’s credit-counseling course.  Weaver, however, 
disputed that she spent two hours with Britt.  She has retained new counsel to 
assist her with her bankruptcy filing. 
Count Two 
{¶ 10} With regard to Count Two, the parties stipulated and the board 
found that in May 2010, Britt agreed to represent Craig Smith in a Chapter 7 
bankruptcy.  Smith paid a retainer of $800 and gave Britt $299 for the filing fee, 
and Britt deposited the money into his operating account.  Britt did not promptly 
file the bankruptcy petition and did not respond to Smith’s inquiries.  He 
stipulated that the delay in filing was due, in part, to the fact that he had spent the 
filing fee on unrelated matters.  He did eventually file the petition, but only after 
he received and misapplied other client funds to pay the filing fee. 
Count Three 
{¶ 11} Neil Frazier retained Britt in October 2009 to represent him in the 
dissolution of his marriage.  He gave Britt an $800 retainer and $250 for the filing 
fee, which Britt deposited in his operating account.  Frazier terminated Britt’s 
representation in October 2010 based upon his lack of communication and his 
failure to file the petition for dissolution.  Britt failed to refund Frazier’s money 
because he had spent it on other matters. 
 
 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
Count Four 
{¶ 12} During relator’s investigation of the Smith grievance, Britt 
admitted that he had a client trust account but that he regularly deposited client 
money, whether earned or unearned, into his operating account.  During his 
September 28, 2010 deposition, he admitted that he had accepted employment, 
retainers, and filing fees from 24 to 30 additional bankruptcy clients.  He further 
acknowledged that he had spent their money on other matters and had failed to 
file their bankruptcy petitions.  Although relator asked Britt to provide names and 
contact information for these clients by October 8, 2010, he did not comply with 
the request until approximately November 4, 2010—after he had retained counsel. 
{¶ 13} The documents Britt provided to relator demonstrated that he had 
accepted over $40,000 in retainers and filing fees from 41 clients, in addition to 
the clients discussed in Counts One through Three, and deposited all of the money 
into his operating account.  Britt used those funds, in part, for his own purposes 
without any regard to whether he had earned them.  He did not take any action to 
notify the affected clients of his misconduct until after relator initiated its 
investigation.  At the time of the panel hearing, Britt had not made restitution to 
any of the affected clients, though he had been paying $1,000 per month ($9,350 
in all) to local bankruptcy attorney Nick Zingarelli, who had assumed the 
representation of some of the affected clients. 
{¶ 14} The parties further stipulated and the board found that as a result of 
Britt’s failure to withhold federal income taxes or pay unemployment taxes, the 
IRS had filed two levies, totaling more than $16,000, against him in the 
bankruptcy court.  Consequently, the bankruptcy trustee has remitted fees earned 
by Britt to the IRS. 
Violations 
{¶ 15} The parties stipulated and the board found that Britt violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
client) by failing to provide Weaver with competent representation as a result of 
his flawed office intake and review process and violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 
(prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an 
illegal or clearly excessive fee) and 7.1 (prohibiting a lawyer from making or 
using false, misleading, or nonverifiable communication about the lawyer or the 
lawyer’s services) by failing to provide Weaver the free initial consultation that 
the Total Bankruptcy website had promised.  The parties also stipulated and the 
board found that Britt aided in the unauthorized practice of law by failing to 
properly supervise Cooper, in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 5.3(b) (requiring a lawyer 
to make reasonable efforts to ensure that a nonlawyer employee’s conduct is 
compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer) and 5.5(a) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from assisting another to practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the 
regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction). 
{¶ 16} With respect to the remaining counts, the parties stipulated and the 
board found that Brit failed to provide diligent, prompt, and competent 
representation to his clients in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3 (requiring a 
lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client) and 1.4 (requiring 
a lawyer to reasonably communicate with a client), that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients in an interest-bearing client 
trust account, separate from the lawyer’s own property) and (c) (requiring a 
lawyer to deposit into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been 
paid in advance) by failing to properly segregate client funds in a client trust 
account, that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and (d) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice) by converting client funds, and that the sum of his 
conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, in violation of 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 17} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 18} Noting that taking retainers from clients and failing to perform the 
promised work is tantamount to theft, relator argued that the appropriate sanction 
for Britt’s conduct is disbarment.  Britt, in contrast, requested that the board 
recommend a two-year suspension, with reinstatement conditioned upon his 
making full restitution to the affected clients. 
{¶ 19} The board found that Britt should be indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio and ordered to pay full restitution to the clients 
affected by his misconduct.  Relator objects to the board’s recommendation and 
argues that permanent disbarment is the only appropriate sanction for the 
misconduct at issue in this case. 
{¶ 20} 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.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 
473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 21} Here, in addition to Britt’s treating his flat fees as earned upon 
receipt, depositing them with his client’s fee deposits into his operating account, 
and spending the money without performing the promised work, he has also aided 
in the unauthorized practice of law by failing to adequately supervise Cooper, and 
charged a clearly excessive fee. 
{¶ 22} We have held that disbarment is the presumptive sanction for 
misappropriation, but we have recognized that this sanction may be tempered with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
sufficient evidence of mitigating or extenuating circumstances.  See, e.g., Dayton 
Bar Assn. v. Gerren, 103 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-4110, 812 N.E.2d 1280, ¶ 14, 
citing Disciplinary Counsel v. France, 97 Ohio St.3d 240, 2002-Ohio-5945, 778 
N.E.2d 573, ¶ 11 (presumptive disciplinary measure for acts of misappropriation 
is disbarment); Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 101 Ohio St.3d 27, 2003-Ohio-
6623, 800 N.E.2d 1129, ¶ 9 (lesser sanction of indefinite suspension based on the 
mitigating evidence that respondent had been licensed to practice for 
approximately 45 years without any previous ethical infraction); Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Garrity, 98 Ohio St.3d 317, 2003-Ohio-740, 784 N.E.2d 691 
(indefinitely suspending a lawyer and former pharmacist convicted of stealing 
prescription drugs for his own use where mitigating factors included the lawyer’s 
drug addiction, demonstrated commitment to sobriety, cooperation in the 
investigations leading to and arising out of his drug-related convictions, and the 
absence of harm to his legal clients). 
{¶ 23} Relator argues that Britt has failed to present sufficient mitigating 
evidence to overcome the presumptive sanction of disbarment.  Specifically, 
relator argues that this court has deviated from the presumptive sanction in cases 
involving only a handful of clients and significant mitigation such as a mental 
illness or addiction or in cases where the respondent has practiced for many years 
without misconduct—factors that are not present in this case.  See, e.g., 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Squire, 130 Ohio St.3d 368, 2011-Ohio-5578, 958 N.E.2d 
914, ¶ 65-66, 70 (indefinitely suspending an attorney who failed to hold client 
funds separate from his own property, misappropriated client funds for his own 
benefit, failed to maintain detailed records of the money held and disbursed on 
behalf of his clients, failed to maintain or produce documentation to support 
claimed client-related expenditures, borrowed money from clients without 
disclosing the inherent conflicts of such arrangements or advising his clients to 
seek independent counsel, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
January Term, 2012 
9 
 
or misrepresentation, and knowingly made false statements of material fact during 
the ensuing disciplinary proceeding when mitigating factors included practice of 
more than 25 years without disciplinary action), citing Akron Bar Assn. v. 
Smithern, 125 Ohio St.3d 72, 2010-Ohio-652, 926 N.E.2d 274 (indefinitely 
suspending an attorney for converting client funds on more than 30 separate 
occasions and for depositing more than $100,000 in client retainers in her 
personal bank account rather than in her firm’s trust account when mitigating 
factors included more than 20 years of practice without disciplinary violations, 
cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, an agreement to make full restitution, 
and gambling and alcohol addictions that were causally related to the attorney’s 
misconduct); and Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Harris, 96 Ohio St.3d 138, 2002-Ohio-
2988, 772 N.E.2d 621 (indefinitely suspending an attorney who converted more 
than $ 29,000 in client funds when mitigating factors included the attorney’s 
status as a military veteran, his 27 years of practice without incident, and letters 
and testimony from his pastor and several professional acquaintances, including 
current and former judges, attesting to his dedication and trustworthiness). 
{¶ 24} As aggravating factors in this case, we find that Britt has engaged 
in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  The parties also stipulated that the vulnerability of and harm 
to Britt’s clients, who had limited resources and whose bankruptcy filings were 
delayed, sometimes indefinitely, by Britt’s neglect and conversion of their fees, 
are an aggravating factor.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h).  And although Britt 
has retained attorney Nick Zingarelli to assist some clients affected by his 
misconduct and paid him more than $9,000 for that work, at the time of the panel 
hearing, there were other clients to whom Britt had made no restitution.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(i). 
{¶ 25} Relator argues that Britt acted with a dishonest or selfish motive 
because he deposited his clients’ funds into his operating account and then used 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
them to pay his professional and personal obligations.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(b). 
{¶ 26} At the panel hearing, Britt testified that he spent 20 years in the Air 
Force working in the areas of federal acquisitions and contract management and 
that upon his honorable discharge from the service in 1996, he chose to attend law 
school.  Upon graduating from the University of Cincinnati College of Law in 
1999, he worked as a foreclosure attorney for two law firms and then became a 
staff attorney for a title company.  He was laid off by the title company in October 
2007 and shared office space with a friend for approximately six months before 
an Indianapolis law firm opened an office in the Cincinnati suburb of Blue Ash 
and hired him to handle consumer bankruptcy matters for clients obtained through 
an Internet-based referral service.  Britt was the only employee at the Blue Ash 
location and had no experience in bankruptcy law.  He quit after two of his first 
three paychecks bounced. 
{¶ 27} After leaving the firm, Britt took the suggestion of Ken Cooper, 
the Indianapolis firm’s business and marketing manager, and opened his own 
bankruptcy firm, using the same Internet referral service to obtain clients.  He 
maintained an office in Blue Ash from July 2008 through July 2009, an office in 
the Cincinnati suburb of Kenwood from October 2008 to November 2009, an 
office in Cincinnati from February 2009 through January 2010, and an office in 
Florence, Kentucky, from October 2008 through September 2010.  His conduct in 
this case does not appear to have been dishonest or selfish.  It was born of his 
inexperience and lack of guidance as he commenced and rapidly expanded his 
solo practice. 
{¶ 28} As the board found, and relator now argues, Britt has failed to 
demonstrate that his diagnosis of depression is a mitigating factor pursuant to 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g) because his evaluating psychiatrist opined that his 
condition “was not severe enough to substantially impair his ability to practice 
January Term, 2012 
11 
 
law.” (Emphasis sic.)  Nonetheless, we find that sufficient mitigating factors are 
present to warrant an indefinite suspension rather than a permanent disbarment in 
this case. 
{¶ 29} First, Britt has no prior disciplinary record.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a).  Britt also made a full and free disclosure to the board and displayed 
a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d).  He 
responded to relator’s letters of inquiry and agreed to be deposed on two separate 
occasions.  He admitted the misconduct alleged in the initial grievances against 
him.  And when questioned during his second deposition about his handling of 
client funds, he admitted that he routinely deposited client payments, including 
filing-fee deposits, directly into his operating account.  At that time, Britt 
estimated that he had 25 to 30 clients whose bankruptcy petitions had not been 
filed because he no longer had the money to pay the filing fees.  This disclosure 
resulted in additional charges levied against Britt in relator’s second amended 
complaint. 
{¶ 30} Not only was Britt candid with relator, he also openly 
acknowledged his own misconduct to the affected clients.  In letters to each of 
them, Britt set out the amount of the payments he had received and advised them: 
 
These monies should have been deposited into my attorney trust 
account and held there until earned.  I did not deposit them into my 
trust account but instead deposited them into my operating 
account.  Additionally, I have not instituted your bankruptcy 
proceeding and so no fees were earned by me.  In plain English, I 
spent the money you paid me before it was earned.  My failure to 
properly hold your money in trust until earned and my failure to 
prosecute your bankruptcy are both serious ethical violations to 
which I have admitted.  I am currently being prosecuted by the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
Cincinnati Bar Association in an action pending before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievance[s] and Discipline. 
 
{¶ 31} Britt advised his clients that he had made arrangements with 
attorney Zingarelli to complete their representation, if they so chose, and 
explained that once his disciplinary action was resolved, his clients could file 
claims with the Client Security Fund.  He also apologized to his clients, stating: 
 
I know that I have violated your trust and put you in jeopardy by 
not timely performing the services I promised to perform.  I have 
been suffering from depression and have only recently begun to 
receive treatment.  I say this as an explanation and not an excuse.  
As you may know, I served in the Air Force for 20 years and was 
honorably discharged.  I have a family and have always prided 
myself on being an honest, contributing member of our 
community.  I have dishonored myself and my profession and have 
let you down.  I cannot adequately convey how sorry I am for my 
actions. 
 
 
{¶ 32} Britt offered a sincere apology to the members of the panel and 
expressed his desire to return to the practice of law at some point in the future so 
that he could provide pro bono services for a nonprofit organization in an effort to 
fulfill his obligations to the public and to restore his honor and integrity.  He has 
also submitted letters from four former clients and one colleague attesting to his 
competency, integrity, and professionalism.  The writers do not state that they are 
aware of the pending disciplinary action against Britt, but at a minimum, their 
letters offer some indication that Britt can be rehabilitated. 
January Term, 2012 
13 
 
{¶ 33} Based on the foregoing, and in light of the sincerity with which 
Britt has expressed both his remorse and his desire to make amends for his 
misconduct, we believe that he may one day be able resume the competent, 
ethical, and professional practice of law.  Therefore, we overrule relator’s 
objections and adopt the board’s recommended sanction of an indefinite 
suspension coupled with an order of restitution.  Recognizing, however, that 
Britt’s inexperience and lack of guidance contributed significantly to his 
misconduct, we supplement the board’s recommended sanction with the 
additional requirements that Britt complete 12 hours of CLE in law-office and 
trust-account management before seeking reinstatement and serve a one-year 
period of monitored probation upon reinstatement to the practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 34} Accordingly, Curtis D. Britt is indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio and ordered to provide to relator, within 30 days of this 
opinion, documentation of all funds received from Sonya Weaver, Craig Smith, 
Neil Frazier, and each of the clients identified in Exhibits D, K, L, and M of Joint 
Exhibit 1 and make restitution to those clients (or their designated payees) in the 
aggregate amount of $2,000 per month until he has made full restitution.  Britt is 
further ordered to provide a monthly accounting to relator of all restitution 
payments made pursuant to this order, commencing with 30 days of this opinion.  
Any future reinstatement shall be conditioned on proof that Britt has fully 
complied with this restitution order and completed 12 hours of CLE in law-office 
and trust-account management in addition to the general requirements of Gov.Bar 
R. X.  Furthermore, upon reinstatement to the practice of law in Ohio, Britt is 
ordered to serve one year of monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. 
V(9).  Costs are taxed to Britt. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
 
__________________ 
Dimity V. Orlet, Assistant Bar Counsel; Crabbe, Brown & James, L.L.P., 
and Robert J. Gehring; and Phillip J. Smith, for relator. 
Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson, L.P.A., George D. Jonson, and Brian M. 
Spiess, for respondent. 
______________________