Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Culbreath

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. Culbreath, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5031.] 
 
 
 
 
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-5031 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. CULBREATH. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Culbreath,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5031.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple trust-account violations—False statements—
Failure to cooperate—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2012-0999—Submitted September 11, 2012—Decided November 1, 2012.) 
On CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-060. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Stanlee E. Culbreath of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0033211, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1975.  
On March 22, 2000, we suspended him from the practice of law for six months, 
with the entire six months stayed, for assisting a nonlawyer in the unauthorized 
practice of law and failing to disclose the assistance.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Culbreath, 88 Ohio St.3d 271, 725 N.E.2d 629 (2000). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} On August 16, 2010, relator, Columbus Bar Association (“CBA”), 
filed a complaint charging Culbreath with three counts of misconduct involving 
violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.  The CBA later amended its 
complaint on October 1, 2010.  The amended complaint alleged that Culbreath 
had neglected to properly document a settlement and distribute the funds, failed to 
properly maintain his client trust account, and failed to fully cooperate in the 
disciplinary process by not making himself available for a deposition and by not 
producing various requested documents in a timely manner. 
{¶ 3} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline heard the cause on May 9, 2011, and on January 30, 2012.  Based upon 
the record, including exhibits and stipulations, the panel concluded that there was 
clear and convincing evidence that Culbreath had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 
(requiring a lawyer to keep funds of clients in a separate interest-bearing account, 
to keep records of the account, and to perform a monthly reconciliation), 4.1 
(prohibiting a lawyer from making a false statement of law or fact to a nonclient),  
5.3 (requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the conduct of 
his or her nonlawyer employees is compatible with the lawyer’s professional 
obligations), 8.1 (prohibiting a lawyer from failing to respond to inquiries in a 
disciplinary investigation), and 8.4(d) and (h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 
in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct that adversely 
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The panel considered factors in 
mitigation and aggravation and recommended that Culbreath be permanently 
disbarred. 
{¶ 4} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline agreed 
with the panel’s findings, conclusions, and recommended sanction. 
{¶ 5} Culbreath filed objections to the recommended sanction of 
permanent disbarment on the bases that the board erroneously concluded that he 
had failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
and that the board failed to consider in mitigation his medical diagnosis presented 
by Judith Fisher. 
{¶ 6} For the reasons stated below, we sustain Culbreath’s objection to 
the recommended sanction.  We find that the more appropriate sanction is an 
indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio, with conditions on 
reinstatement. 
Findings of Panel and Board 
Count One 
{¶ 7} In 2007, Culbreath assumed responsibility for a personal-injury 
claim belonging to Kossar Hassan after Hassan’s attorney, Paul Brown, who was 
also Culbreath’s law partner, unexpectedly died.  On March 10, 2008, Culbreath 
settled the claim for $5,000.  Although at the time of the settlement, Culbreath 
knew that Hassan had outstanding medical expenses arising from her injuries, he 
did not pay the medical-service providers in a timely manner. 
{¶ 8} Gisela Salinas, a representative from Health 1 Medical, an 
independent firm that performed billing services for Hassan’s medical-service 
provider, testified before the panel that in June or July 2009, she contacted Hassan 
about payment.  Salinas testified that Hassan told her that the case had been 
settled in March 2008 and that Hassan had received a check for only $700 out of 
the $5,000 settlement. 
{¶ 9} Salinas further testified that she left multiple telephone messages 
for Culbreath.  He eventually returned her calls after she threatened to file a 
complaint against him for nonpayment of the medical bill.  She testified that 
Culbreath insisted that she could not have spoken with Hassan, because Hassan 
was out of the country, and that he told her that the case had been settled for only 
$1,800.  She asked Culbreath for a disbursement sheet and payment.  He sent the 
payment but did not include the disbursement sheet.  Salinas testified that in a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
later conversation, Culbreath told her he could not locate the file or provide a 
copy of the disbursement sheet. 
{¶ 10} In his deposition, Culbreath testified that he was not certain 
whether he had had any conversation with Salinas about Hassan’s medical bills.  
He later testified at the hearing that the conversation with Salinas was based on a 
misunderstanding.  He thought she was asking about another personal-injury case 
that had settled for $1,800 around the same time as Hassan’s case. 
{¶ 11} Culbreath testified that he forgot to contact the medical providers 
following the settlement to negotiate payment of their fees.  He eventually sent a 
partial payment from his trust account on July 18, 2009, more than a year after the 
settlement.  Culbreath blamed the mistake on staffing changes at his office and a 
new secretary who mistakenly made the partial payment.  Culbreath sent a second 
check to correct the error, but he was unable to produce a signed disbursement 
sheet as evidence of the Hassan settlement. 
Count Two 
{¶ 12} Culbreath admitted that he had commingled his funds and his 
clients’ funds in his trust account, used his trust account to pay personal and 
business expenses, and made unauthorized withdrawals from the account.  He 
also stipulated that he had failed to maintain ledgers for the trust account. 
{¶ 13} In his deposition, Culbreath admitted that from 2007 through 2009, 
he was unaware of the trust-account requirements that had become effective on 
February 1, 2007.  He testified that his trust account became overdrawn on three 
occasions.  He further admitted that he had credit issues and a number of 
judgments against him, including a judgment in foreclosure. 
Count Three 
{¶ 14} On October 9, 2009, the CBA served a request for the production 
of documents and a notice of deposition on Culbreath for November 30, 2009.  
The parties stipulated that there was some delay in scheduling but that Culbreath 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
finally appeared for his deposition on April 9, 2010.  Culbreath acknowledged 
that he did not immediately locate and produce all of the documents requested and 
that he did not have in his possession many of the documents requested.  For 
instance, Culbreath produced only some bank statements from his trust account.  
He was unable to produce any deposit or withdrawal slips for the years 2008 and 
2009, and only very few check stubs.  Culbreath also failed to timely produce 
requested federal tax returns. 
Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct 
{¶ 15} We agree with the panel’s conclusions, as adopted by the board, 
that there was clear and convincing evidence that Culbreath had violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15, 4.1, 5.3, 8.1, and 8.4. 
Sanction 
{¶ 16} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the duties violated and 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.  We also weigh evidence of aggravating and mitigating 
factors 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. 
{¶ 17} In mitigation, Culbreath offered that he has had only one prior 
instance of discipline since becoming licensed to practice law in 1975.  He 
submitted testimony or letters from three character references.  A representative 
of the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) testified that Culbreath had 
signed a monitoring contract in January 2010 and that he was doing “moderately 
well” in compliance. 
{¶ 18} Judith Fisher, a clinical social worker with whom Culbreath began 
counseling after the May 9, 2011 hearing, also testified in mitigation.  According 
to Fisher, she diagnosed Culbreath with an adjustment disorder with depression 
and anxiety.  Culbreath had disclosed that numerous personal problems had 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
occurred within a short period of time, including the death of his brother, who had 
managed the law firm’s finances, the death of his daughter’s fiancé a month later, 
and the unexpected death of his law partner and friend, Paul Brown.  In addition, 
Culbreath told her that his sister, who worked as his legal secretary, had taken 
time off following her husband’s death, that his son was incarcerated, and that his 
wife suffered from a substance-abuse problem. 
{¶ 19} Fisher opined that these events caused Culbreath’s emotional 
symptoms, which in turn affected his ability to practice law.  She testified that in 
her opinion, Culbreath could return to the practice of law under certain 
circumstances, such as the continuation of counseling and his relationship with 
OLAP, plus the appointment of a monitor for his law practice.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(e) and (g). 
{¶ 20} The panel identified the presence of several aggravating factors, 
including Culbreath’s prior disciplinary record, his repeated refusal to 
acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct, including the circumstances of his 
prior disciplinary case, his lack of cooperation, his repeated abuse of his trust 
account, and his poor recordkeeping and mishandling of client files that 
constituted a pattern of misconduct resulting in multiple offenses.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), and (g). 
{¶ 21} Culbreath argued that a six-month suspension of his law license, 
with all six months stayed, was an appropriate sanction.  The CBA requested a 
sanction of indefinite suspension.  But the panel recommended, and the board 
agreed, that Culbreath should be permanently disbarred, citing his “prior 
disciplinary history, the gravity of his misconduct, and his uncooperative, evasive 
manner and continuing irrational thought processes.” 
{¶ 22} The board cited Dayton Bar Assn. v. Wilson, 127 Ohio St.3d 10, 
2010-Ohio-4937, 935 N.E.2d 841, in which we imposed an indefinite suspension 
upon an attorney who failed to maintain accurate records of the funds in her trust 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
account, failed to participate in the disciplinary process, and refused to 
acknowledge her wrongful conduct.  The board also cited  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 381, 2006-Ohio-1194, 843 N.E.2d 1198,  in which we 
imposed an indefinite suspension upon an attorney who misused his trust account, 
failed to provide records for his account during the disciplinary process, and 
provided less than candid responses to inquiries regarding the records. 
{¶ 23} Finally, we imposed an indefinite suspension in Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Ranke, 130 Ohio St.3d 139, 2011-Ohio-4730, 956 N.E.2d 288, for 
misconduct that included failure to properly maintain a trust account and failure to 
cooperate in the disciplinary investigation. 
{¶ 24} After reviewing the board’s analysis of the evidence and the case 
law in support of its recommendation, we believe that an indefinite suspension, 
with stringent conditions on reinstatement, is appropriate under these 
circumstances.  Many of Culbreath’s problems stem from the numerous tragic 
events that disrupted his personal and professional life beginning in 2007.  His 
counselor, Judith Fisher, testified that as a result of his grief, he was unable to 
focus on his law practice, which in turn affected his ability to practice law. 
{¶ 25} Prior to any reinstatement, Culbreath must demonstrate that he has 
taken 12 hours instruction on current professional-responsibility rules and 
acceptable office practices in addition to the general requirements in Gov.Bar R. 
X(3)(G) .  In addition, he must submit an independent mental-health evaluation, 
successfully complete his OLAP contract, and commit no further misconduct.  
Upon reinstatement, he must be assigned a monitor for one year of probation, 
during which he must practice law in association with at least one other 
experienced lawyer.  Under these circumstances, an indefinite suspension of 
Culbreath’s license to practice law fulfills the underlying purpose of the 
disciplinary proceedings, i.e., “to safeguard the courts and to protect the public.”  
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 41 Ohio St.2d 97, 100, 322 N.E.2d 665 (1975). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 26} Accordingly, we indefinitely suspend Stanlee E. Culbreath from 
the practice of law in Ohio, with conditions on reinstatement as stated.  Costs are 
taxed to Culbreath. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and 
MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar 
Counsel; Terry K. Sherman; and Tyack, Blackmore & Liston Co., L.P.A. and 
James P. Tyack, for relator. 
Kenneth R. Donchatz, for respondent. 
______________________