Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Axner

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Axner, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-400.] 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-400 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. AXNER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Axner,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-400.] 
Attorney misconduct—Multiple disciplinary violations—Improper employment of 
suspended attorney—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2012-1340—Submitted January 9, 2013—Decided February 14, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-036. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Gary Ray Axner of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0018278, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1971.  In 
a five-count amended complaint filed in October 2011, relator, Cleveland 
Metropolitan Bar Association, charged Axner with professional misconduct 
arising from his alleged neglect of five separate client matters, failure to 
reasonably communicate with some of those clients, his employment of a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
suspended attorney for approximately 13 years, and his initial failure to cooperate 
in two of the resulting disciplinary investigations.1   
{¶ 2} The parties submitted several stipulations of fact and misconduct, 57 
exhibits, and ten witnesses, including Axner.  The panel found that relator had 
proven many of its alleged violations by clear and convincing evidence but, citing 
the insufficiency of the evidence, recommended that Count One and certain 
violations alleged in Count Two be dismissed.  Having considered its findings of 
misconduct, the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions 
imposed for comparable misconduct, the panel recommended that Axner be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings of fact and its recommended sanction.  We are persuaded to accept the 
recommendation of the board.  Accordingly, we indefinitely suspend Axner. 
Misconduct 
Count One—The Calvey Matter 
{¶ 3} The first count of relator’s complaint relates to Axner’s agreement to 
handle a personal bankruptcy for Patricia and Timothy Calvey.  It alleged that 
Axner neglected the couple’s legal matter by failing to file a bankruptcy petition 
during his nearly 18 months of representation, failing to reasonably communicate 
with the couple, and charging an unreasonable and clearly excessive fee by 
retaining $500 of their $1,399 retainer for services rendered upon the termination 
of his representation. 
{¶ 4} Having considered the parties’ stipulations and the testimony 
regarding this count, the board found that the Calveys’ bankruptcy was less than 
simple due to unforeseen complications, including an automobile accident and a 
                                                 
1 Although some of Axner’s alleged acts of misconduct occurred before the February 1, 2007 
effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, relator has not alleged any violations of the 
Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which governed attorney 
misconduct that occurred before that date.    
 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
resulting personal-injury claim that the couple did not initially disclose to Axner.  
And while the board noted that there was room to criticize Axner for his 
inattentiveness and his communication style, the board could not say with firm 
conviction that Axner demonstrated an unreasonable lack of diligence.  Moreover, 
the board was not convinced that the portion of the retainer that Axner kept was 
unreasonable in light of the indisputable preparatory work that he had performed 
on the Calveys’ case.  Therefore, we adopt the board’s recommendation and 
dismiss Count One in its entirety. 
Count Two—The Norman Matter 
{¶ 5} Phyllis Norman retained Axner in November 2007 to file a 
bankruptcy petition on her behalf and paid installments totaling $1,000 for 
Axner’s fee and an additional $399 for costs.  The parties stipulate that Axner 
ignored Norman’s telephone calls and messages from the time he was retained 
until July 2010—more than two and a half years.  In order to speak to Axner, 
Norman would go to his office during his Saturday office hours without an 
appointment and wait to see him.  At those meetings, Axner assured Norman that 
he would file her bankruptcy petition “next week,” yet nothing happened.  
Norman testified that Axner’s failures caused her a lot of stress and, when she 
grew tired of waiting, she filed a grievance with relator.  Upset that she had 
contacted relator, Axner finally called her back and soon filed her bankruptcy 
petition.  She finally received her bankruptcy discharge in January 2011—more 
than three years after she retained Axner.  The parties stipulate that the delays in 
Norman’s case were due to Axner’s neglect or lack of diligence. 
{¶ 6} Based on these facts, the board found that Axner had violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
to practice law).  But,  stating that there was insufficient evidence to establish that 
discrepancies between the fees Axner had received from Norman and the amount 
that he reported to the bankruptcy court resulted from misrepresentation, the 
board recommends that we dismiss alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a 
tribunal) and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice).  We adopt the board’s findings of fact 
and misconduct with respect to this count and hereby dismiss the alleged 
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(d). 
Count Three—Failure to Cooperate 
{¶ 7} The board found that Axner had violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) 
(requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation) and 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a 
demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation) by 
failing to respond to relator’s letter of inquiry regarding the Calvey and Norman 
grievances and failing to comply with a subpoena for his deposition and the 
production of documents.  The board also noted that Axner was not candid either 
about his reasons for his absence, stating that he had to attend his aunt’s funeral 
(which occurred several days after the scheduled deposition), or about his 
intention to retain certain counsel.  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and 
misconduct with respect to this count. 
Count Four—The Carroll Matter 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulate and the board found that on May 2, 2009, 
Clinton and Wendy Carroll retained Axner to represent them in a Chapter 7 
bankruptcy proceeding.  By early September 2009, they had paid him a total of 
$1,399, but he did not file their bankruptcy petition until mid-October 2010.  The 
bankruptcy court ordered Axner to disgorge $200 of his fee to the Carrolls after 
he failed to attend a meeting of creditors.  Axner subsequently converted the 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
bankruptcy to a Chapter 13 proceeding, but the first meeting of creditors had to be 
rescheduled because he arrived late and inebriated.  Throughout these delays, 
Axner was not responsive to the Carrolls’ communications.  They missed work to 
attend the creditor meetings that Axner missed and had to repeat their credit-
counseling course due to his delays. 
{¶ 9} The parties stipulated that Axner’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.3.  The board adopted that stipulation and also found that his conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as 
practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client), 1.4(b) 
(requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to 
permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation), 8.4(d), 
and 8.4(h) as charged in the complaint.  We adopt these findings of fact and 
misconduct. 
Count Five—Employment of a Suspended Attorney 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulate that Axner employed suspended attorney 
Howard Schuman for about 13 years following his 1998 suspension.2  While 
Axner and Schuman initially attended meetings at clients’ homes together, Axner 
eventually allowed Schuman to meet alone with clients.  He generally split his 
fees evenly with Schuman and never registered this employment relationship with 
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel as required by Gov.Bar R. V(8)(G) (requiring 
an attorney or law firm seeking to enter into an employment, contractual, or 
consulting relationship with a suspended attorney to register that relationship with 
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel). 
                                                 
2 Although we suspended Schuman for one year, we placed certain conditions on his reinstatement 
to the practice of law, and to date, he has not applied for reinstatement.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Schuman, 81 Ohio St.3d 185, 690 N.E.2d 1 (1998).  Moreover, in 2005, we imposed an attorney-
registration suspension against Schuman.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Schuman, 107 
Ohio St.3d 1431, 1439, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 11} Axner violated an administrative order of the bankruptcy court by 
failing to meet with his clients Traci Robinson and Barbara Wojciechowski before 
the meetings of creditors in their cases.  Instead, he relied upon Schuman to meet 
with these clients and collect Robinson’s fees.  He failed to attend the meeting of 
creditors in both cases and, with respect to the Wojciechowski matter, failed to 
file required documents, failed to keep the client reasonably informed of the status 
of her case, failed to respond to the client’s requests for information, and failed to 
explain matters sufficiently to allow the client to make informed decisions.  
Additionally, the parties stipulated that on April 14, 2011, Axner was drinking 
before court and appeared drunk before federal Bankruptcy Judge Randolph 
Baxter. 
{¶ 12} With respect to this count, the parties stipulated and the board 
found that Axner had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(b), 5.4(a) 
(prohibiting a lawyer or law firm from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer, except 
in certain enumerated circumstances not applicable here), and 5.5(a) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the 
legal profession in that jurisdiction or assisting another in doing so) and Gov.Bar 
R. V(8)(G)(3).  The board also found that Axner’s conduct with respect to 
Robinson and Wojciechowski violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 8.4(c), 
8.4(d), and 8.4(h).  We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
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 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 14} As aggravating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found 
that Axner has engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  The board also found that Axner had 
acted with a selfish motive and took advantage of vulnerable clients.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) and (h). 
{¶ 15} As mitigating factors, the parties stipulated that Axner does not 
have a prior disciplinary record, has fully and freely cooperated in the disciplinary 
proceeding since obtaining counsel, and has been diagnosed with a chemical 
dependency for which he has completed an intensive outpatient program.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), (g).  The board, however, noted that Axner 
initially failed to cooperate in relator’s disciplinary investigation, that Axner’s 
attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) meetings continued to drop, and 
that when asked whether Axner was currently able to practice law competently 
and ethically, his counselor replied, “I believe he’s currently working a good 
recovery program.”  And although the board acknowledged that some of Axner’s 
misconduct could be attributed to his alcoholism, it found that there was no 
evidence that his alcoholism was at the root of his 13-year de facto partnership 
with Schuman.  Therefore, the board found that the only mitigating factor present 
was the absence of a prior disciplinary record. 
{¶ 16} In his closing brief following the panel hearing, Axner argued that 
the appropriate sanction for his misconduct was a suspension of an unspecified 
duration, fully stayed on the conditions that he serve a period of monitored 
probation and regularly attend AA.  In contrast, citing Columbus Bar Assn. v. Van 
Sickle, 128 Ohio St.3d 376, 2011-Ohio-774, 944 N.E.2d 677, relator recommends 
that he be indefinitely suspended and that any future reinstatement be conditioned 
on Axner’s entering into and successfully completing a contract with the Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”).  In Van Sickle, we imposed an indefinite 
suspension for an attorney who engaged in the practice of law while his license 
was under a registration suspension, neglected legal matters to the detriment of 
his clients, and failed initially to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary 
investigations.  Id. at ¶ 15.  We also conditioned any future reinstatement on his 
participation in OLAP and treatment for his diagnosed depression.  Id. at ¶ 16. 
{¶ 17} In rejecting Axner’s proposed sanction, the board noted that in 
addition to neglecting work that his clients entrusted to him, Axner “committed 
significant additional misconduct evincing dishonesty and a selfish motive by 
knowingly partnering with a suspended lawyer (Mr. Schuman) for as many as 14 
years and deriving substantial profits from that illicit arrangement, by deliberately 
failing to report that arrangement to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, by 
deliberately failing to cooperate in Relator’s investigation, and by knowingly 
misrepresenting his reasons for that failure.”  He also appeared in court while 
drunk.  Viewing these instances of misconduct in the aggregate, the board found 
that Axner’s conduct presented an “extraordinary risk” to the public.  Recognizing 
that we have imposed sanctions ranging from a public reprimand to permanent 
disbarment for attorneys who have assisted suspended or disbarred attorneys in 
the unauthorized practice of law, and stating that it “could find no instance of an 
attorney enabling ineligible persons to practice law that was more extreme, 
flagrant, and protracted than Respondent’s,” the board recommends that we 
indefinitely suspend Axner from the practice of law.  See, e.g., Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Willis, 96 Ohio St.3d 142, 2002-Ohio-3614, 772 N.E.2d 625 (publicly 
reprimanding an attorney who permitted a disbarred lawyer to handle client 
matters without supervision for more than 18 months); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. 
Fehler-Schultz, 64 Ohio St.3d 452, 597 N.E.2d 79 (1992) (indefinitely suspending 
an attorney who, among other things, permitted a suspended lawyer with felony 
convictions for theft, forgery, and uttering to handle a full range of client matters); 
January Term, 2013 
9 
 
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. George, 45 Ohio St.2d 267, 344 N.E.2d 132 (1976) 
(disbarring an attorney who turned over his bankruptcy practice to his brother, 
who was not a lawyer). 
{¶ 18} We adopt the board’s findings of fact in aggravation and mitigation 
and agree that an indefinite suspension is the proper sanction for Axner’s 
misconduct.  Accordingly, we indefinitely suspend Gary Ray Axner from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Any future reinstatement shall be conditioned on his 
entering into an OLAP contract, the duration of which shall be determined by 
OLAP, and his full compliance with that contract.  Costs are taxed to Axner. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Heather M. Zirke, Assistant Bar Counsel, Andrew C. Geronimo, and 
Stephen D. Hobt, for relator. 
Gary Ray Axner, pro se. 
______________________