Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wagner

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wagner, 117 Ohio St.3d 456, 2008-Ohio-1200.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. WAGNER. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wagner,  
117 Ohio St.3d 456, 2008-Ohio-1200.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disbarment. 
(No. 2007-1917 – Submitted December 12, 2007 – Decided March 20, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-044. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Charles E. Wagner of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0046937, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1990.  On April 4, 
2007, we indefinitely suspended respondent from the practice of law based on 
findings that he had failed to promptly return unearned retainers and failed to 
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Wagner, 113 Ohio St.3d 158, 2007-Ohio-1253, 863 N.E.2d 164. 
{¶ 2} In June 2007, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed 
another complaint charging respondent with several other violations of the Code 
of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent failed to answer the complaint, and 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F), relator moved for default.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline appointed a master commissioner.  
The master commissioner granted relator’s motion for a default judgment, making 
findings of fact and conclusions of law and a recommendation, all of which the 
board adopted. 
{¶ 3} The board recommends that we impose an indefinite suspension of 
respondent’s license to practice law based on findings that he committed several 
disciplinary violations.  We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct.  However, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
we reject the board’s recommended sanction and find instead that respondent 
should be permanently disbarred. 
Misconduct 
United States Bankruptcy Court 
{¶ 4} In December 2005, Judge Patricia Morgenstern-Clarren of the 
United States Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of Ohio issued an order 
requiring respondent to appear and show cause why he should not be held in civil 
contempt for failing to respond to previous show-cause orders.  Respondent failed 
to appear, and the bankruptcy court found respondent in contempt and ordered 
him to return the client’s fee.  Respondent did not return his client’s fee. 
{¶ 5} In an unrelated case, respondent failed to comply with court rules 
regarding the filing of documents.  The case was dismissed when respondent 
failed to respond to a show-cause order regarding the deficiency.  As a result of 
his failure to correct the deficient filing and his multiple failures to appear in 
response to court orders in that and other cases, Judge Morgenstern-Clarren issued 
an order revoking respondent’s electronic-filing privileges. 
{¶ 6} In March 2006, Judge Arthur Harris of the United States 
Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of Ohio issued a show-cause order 
requiring respondent to appear and explain deficiencies in two other cases.  
Respondent did not appear at the scheduled hearing, and the bankruptcy court 
sanctioned respondent by ordering him to return the attorney fees he had received 
on the cases.  Respondent failed to comply with the court’s order. 
{¶ 7} With respect to the above misconduct, the board found that 
respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) 
(prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 
7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to seek a client’s 
lawful objectives), 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to 
January Term, 2008 
3 
carry out an employment contract), and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer to 
promptly deliver funds in his possession that the client is entitled to receive). 
Failure to Cooperate in Disciplinary Investigation 
{¶ 8} Respondent was notified of the filing of the grievances against him 
but failed to respond to the inquiries of relator’s investigators or otherwise 
cooperate in the investigation of these matters.  Relator attempted to serve 
respondent with a copy of the formal complaint at the address on file for him with 
the Office of Attorney Registration.  Service was later perfected through the Clerk 
of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent did not 
answer the complaint. 
{¶ 9} By ignoring relator’s investigative inquiries, respondent violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate in a disciplinary 
investigation). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 10} In recommending a sanction, the board considered the following 
aggravating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing 
Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The board found that there was 
a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  The board also found that there was a lack of cooperation in 
the disciplinary process and that respondent refused to acknowledge the wrongful 
nature of his conduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e) and (g).  Finally, the board 
considered the vulnerability of and resulting harm to the victims of respondent’s 
misconduct and respondent’s failure to make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(h) and (i).  No mitigating factors were found.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2). 
{¶ 11} The relator recommended that respondent be permanently 
disbarred.  The master commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
from the practice of law indefinitely.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s recommendation. 
Review 
{¶ 12} Respondent does not challenge the board’s findings of misconduct 
or the recommended sanction.  We have reviewed the board’s record and its 
report, and we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 7-
101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(4), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
{¶ 13} We do not, however, accept the board’s recommendation of an 
indefinite suspension.  We have stated on numerous occasions that “the primary 
purpose of disciplinary sanctions is not to punish the offender, but to protect the 
public.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204, 2004-Ohio-4704, 
815 N.E.2d 286, ¶ 53, citing Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Weaver (1975), 41 Ohio 
St.2d 97, 100, 70 O.O.2d 175, 322 N.E.2d 665.  Respondent has knowingly 
violated his duty to protect his clients’ interests by abandoning their cases, and he 
thereby caused harm to those clients.  Respondent knowingly violated his duty to 
comply with court orders, including refusing orders to return unearned fees.  And 
respondent knowingly violated his duties to the legal profession and the public by 
refusing to cooperate in the disciplinary process. 
{¶ 14} We have already imposed an indefinite suspension upon 
respondent for nearly identical misconduct.  See Wagner, 113 Ohio St.3d 158, 
2007-Ohio-1253, 863 N.E.2d 164.  We also note that respondent has been under 
suspension since 2005 for failing to comply with this court’s attorney-registration 
requirements.  Moreover, the record before us contains no evidence that weighs in 
favor of leniency.  In contrast, respondent has engaged in a pattern of misconduct 
involving multiple offenses, has refused to acknowledge his wrongful conduct, 
has failed to make restitution, and has failed to cooperate in the disciplinary 
process. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
{¶ 15} Respondent’s conduct in this matter – and in his previous 
disciplinary case – reflects a lack of regard for the ethical and professional 
standards required of members of the bar.  We have permanently disbarred 
attorneys who have committed similar breaches of duties to clients, the public, 
and the legal profession.  See Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Glatki (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 
381, 726 N.E.2d 993, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, 114 Ohio St.3d 466, 
2007-Ohio-4260, 873 N.E.2d 273.  Accordingly, respondent is permanently 
disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Ellen S. Mandell, for relator. 
______________________