Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Thomas

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. Thomas, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1031.] 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-1031 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. THOMAS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Thomas,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1031.] 
Attorney misconduct, including failing to act with reasonable diligence and to 
keep client informed about the status of a legal matter and knowingly 
making or failing to correct a false statement of fact to a tribunal — Six-
month suspension stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2009-1961 ⎯ Submitted December 16, 2009 ⎯ Decided March 24, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-007. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Sam Thomas III of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0067848, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends suspending respondent from the practice of law for a period of six 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
months, with the suspension conditionally stayed.  The recommendation derives 
from respondent’s conduct in a client’s bankruptcy case and his conduct in a 
second client’s personal-injury case.  We accept the board’s findings and 
conclusions that respondent committed the charged professional misconduct, and 
we adopt the recommended sanction. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, charged 
respondent with violating Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) (knowingly making, or failing to 
correct, a false statement of fact to a tribunal) for conduct while representing his 
client in the bankruptcy.  In regard to the personal-injury case, relator charged 
respondent with violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client), Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(1) (failure 
to promptly inform the client of a decision or circumstance when the client’s 
informed consent is required), and Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (failure to keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of a legal matter). 
{¶ 4} A panel of board members heard the case and issued findings of 
fact and conclusions of law.  The panel found clear and convincing evidence that 
respondent violated the rules as charged.  The panel recommended that 
respondent be suspended for six months, all stayed provided he commit no further 
misconduct during the suspension period and provide restitution to his bankruptcy 
client in the amount of $126.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations of the panel. 
{¶ 5} The parties do not object to the board report. 
Misconduct 
The Bankruptcy Cases 
{¶ 6} Respondent was hired to represent a client in a Chapter 13 
bankruptcy.  When respondent filed the bankruptcy petition, he did not file a 
rights-and-responsibilities form that was required by the bankruptcy court to be 
signed by both the debtor and the debtor’s attorney.  The form designates the 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
rights and responsibilities of the debtor and the duties of the attorney; without the 
form, counsel fees are allowed only upon application to the bankruptcy court or 
pursuant to a written agreement between the debtor and the attorney that clearly 
delineates the basis of the fees. 
{¶ 7} The client paid respondent $500 to file the bankruptcy, $126 of 
which was retained by respondent for his fee.  The bankruptcy case was later 
dismissed because the client did not follow the payment plan; the client was to 
pay $600 each month to fund the plan but paid only $300. 
{¶ 8} The respondent filed a second bankruptcy petition for the same 
client.  He was paid $200 to file the petition; this time he did file a signed rights-
and-responsibilities form.  The client contacted the Chapter 13 bankruptcy 
trustee’s office to seek the refund of the $300 payment in the first bankruptcy.  
The client was initially informed that the trustee had filed a motion to compel 
respondent to disgorge his fees because he had not filed the rights-and-
responsibilities form in the first case.  In a later conversation, she was told that 
respondent had filed the required form in response to the motion to disgorge fees, 
thus allowing respondent to collect the $300 from the first filing as fees. 
{¶ 9} In response to the motion to disgorge fees, however, respondent’s 
staff had simply filed a duplicate copy of the rights-and-responsibilities form from 
the second bankruptcy, changing the dollar amount and case number.  After this 
discovery, respondent was not awarded his attorney fees from the first bankruptcy 
filing and the refund from that first filing was returned to the client.  Respondent 
admitted at the panel’s hearing that he had not returned the $126 fee he had 
collected in the first filing and that the fee should be disgorged because the rights-
and-responsibilities form had not been filed. 
The Personal-Injury Case 
{¶ 10} Another client hired respondent to represent her in a personal-
injury case.  After the client rejected a settlement offer of $1,981, respondent filed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
a lawsuit for the client.  Respondent then communicated to the client that the 
defendant’s insurance carrier had offered $6,000 to resolve the claim.  
Respondent’s client accepted the settlement offer of $6,000; Respondent 
contacted the insurance adjuster to confirm the settlement but was informed that 
the company’s offer was for only $3,000.  When respondent informed the client 
of his mistake, she informed him that she would settle only for $6,000.  She later 
sent respondent a letter stating, “I do not wish to go to trial for this case so do 
what you need to do to resolve and finalize.”  The board concluded that 
respondent believed this letter gave him authority to settle, so he accepted a 
settlement offer for $3,000. 
{¶ 11} Respondent sent the $3,000 check and release to the client, but she 
refused to sign the release and did not negotiate the check.  Respondent did not 
withdraw from the case but failed to appear at the final pretrial conference and at 
the trial.  The case was dismissed without prejudice, a fact respondent did not 
timely reveal to the client.  Respondent’s motion to vacate the judgment of 
dismissal and his motion to reinstate the case were denied.  The client was not 
advised of the denial of the motions.  Months after the case was initially 
dismissed, the counsel representing the respondent in this disciplinary action 
notified the client that her case was dismissed and that if she wished, she could 
refile it within the pertinent statute-of-limitations period. 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant facts, including the ethical duties that the lawyer 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.  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.  Because each disciplinary case is unique, we are not 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take into account “all relevant 
factors” in determining what sanction to impose.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 13} The board found that factors in mitigation of respondent’s conduct 
included his lack of a prior disciplinary record, BCGD Proc.Reg. (10)(B)(2)(a), 
and his full cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, BCGD Proc.Reg. 
(10)(B)(2)(d).  The board found that there were no aggravating factors: the board 
made no finding that respondent had acted with a selfish motive, BCGD 
Proc.Reg. (10)(B)(1)(b), and he took responsibility for his actions and those of his 
staff, see BCGD Proc.Reg. (10)(B)(1)(g).  The board also found that respondent 
had informed the personal-injury client of the procedure to refile her case.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. (10)(B)(1)(h). 
{¶ 14} The board considered two cases in making its recommendation,  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson, 95 Ohio St.3d 129, 2002-Ohio-1756, 766 
N.E.2d 590 (court, considering lack of prior disciplinary record, imposed six-
month suspension, all stayed, for failure to fully disclose to a bankruptcy court the 
total fees charged), and Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cox., 98 Ohio St.3d 420, 2003-
Ohio-1553, 786 N.E.2d 454 (court imposed a public reprimand instead of a 
suspension for an attorney’s failure to notify a client of a case’s dismissal because 
of the limited harm to the client and the isolated nature of the incident).  Having 
considered these cases and the mitigating factors, albeit weak, we agree that the 
recommended sanction is appropriate. 
{¶ 15} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for six months; however, the suspension is stayed on the conditions that he 
commit no further misconduct during the stayed suspension period and that he 
pay, within 30 days of this order, $126 in restitution to his bankruptcy client.  If 
respondent violates these conditions, the stay will be lifted, and respondent will 
serve the six-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Edward H. Blakemore and Heather M. Zirke, for relator. 
Koblentz & Koblentz, Richard S. Koblentz, and Bryan L. Penvose, for 
respondent. 
______________________