Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Trivers

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Trivers, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5389.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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-5389 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. TRIVERS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Trivers,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5389.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct 
and Disciplinary Rules, including disregarding a standing rule of a 
tribunal or a ruling of a tribunal made in the course of a proceeding and 
failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client—Two-year 
suspension, one year stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2012-0655—Submitted May 23, 2012—Decided November 27, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-008. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Oscar Trivers of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0019588, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1960.  
On October 13, 2009, we suspended him from the practice of law for one year, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
with six months stayed, for abusing his notary power and being present when 
another party created a fraudulent document.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Trivers, 123 
Ohio St.3d 436, 2009-Ohio-5285, 917 N.E.2d 261. 
{¶ 2} In March 2010, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, filed an 
amended complaint charging Trivers with four counts of misconduct and 
violations of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of 
Professional Conduct.1  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline heard the cause on September 12, 2011, and recommended that the 
board adopt the facts and violations of misconduct as stipulated, as well as the 
parties’ proposed sanction suspending Trivers from the practice of law for two 
years, staying 18 months of the suspension, and imposing a period of monitored 
probation during the stayed portion. 
{¶ 3} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of 
law but amended the panel’s recommended sanction.  The board recommended 
that Trivers be suspended from the practice of law for two years, with one year 
stayed, and that he serve one year of monitored probation. 
{¶ 4} The parties have not objected to the board’s report. 
Stipulated Facts and Rule Violations 
Count I—Hoyle Matter 
{¶ 5} On November 13, 2006, Trivers electronically filed a Chapter 13 
bankruptcy petition on behalf of James M. Hoyle.  At the time of filing, Hoyle 
had been deceased for almost three years.  Trivers learned that Hoyle was 
                                      
1 Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before and 
after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which supersede 
the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Although both the former and 
current rules are cited for the same acts, the allegations comprise a single continuing ethical 
violation. Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, 
¶ 1, fn. 1. 
 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
deceased shortly after he filed the petition but incorrectly believed that the 
petition could be pursued on behalf of Hoyle’s estate. 
{¶ 6} The Hoyle bankruptcy petition was dismissed, because Hoyle was 
ineligible to be a debtor under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The 
bankruptcy court ordered Trivers to disgorge the sum of $400 in attorney fees that 
he had received for legal services in connection with the filing.  Trivers complied 
with the disgorgement order. 
Count II—Santos Matter 
{¶ 7} On October 27, 2006, Trivers filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy 
petition on behalf of Barbara Santos, but he neglected to timely file the required 
debtor’s certificate and a Chapter 13 plan.  The bankruptcy court dismissed the 
Santos petition, but it retained jurisdiction to consider imposing sanctions on 
Trivers. 
{¶ 8} On March 16, 2007, the bankruptcy court ordered Trivers to 
disgorge the sum of $500 in attorney fees that he had received for legal services in 
connection with the Santos filing.  When Trivers failed to comply, the court 
ordered an additional fine of $15 per day for each day after July 20, 2007, that 
Trivers did not comply with the disgorgement order. 
{¶ 9} On August 29, 2007, the bankruptcy court entered an order 
imposing additional sanctions on Trivers in the Santos matter.  That court ordered 
Trivers to comply with orders to disgorge fees in several other cases, to undergo a 
mental health examination and other obligations under his contract with the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program, and to obtain a determination that he was fit to 
practice law.  Trivers was prohibited from filing bankruptcy cases until he had 
complied with the order. 
{¶ 10} On July 23, 2008, the bankruptcy court reinstated Trivers’s filing 
privileges but required him to obtain co-counsel for every new petition filed.  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
following year, the court restricted Trivers to filing Chapter 7 cases and continued 
the requirement that he obtain co-counsel for each new filing. 
Count III—Miscellaneous Matters 
{¶ 11} Trivers failed to file required documents in numerous other 
Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, resulting in the dismissal of several cases.  The 
court issued disgorgement orders in at least seven of those cases.  In some of the 
cases, Trivers failed to appear for bankruptcy hearings due, in part, to his failure 
to check his own e-mail for court notices. 
Count IV 
{¶ 12} The panel recognized that the bar association presented no 
evidence in support of Count IV of the amended complaint and therefore 
dismissed the count.2  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(H). 
Conclusions of Law 
{¶ 13} The parties stipulated that Trivers violated the following rules of 
ethical conduct:  DR 1-102(A)(5) and Prof.Cond.R 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), DR 
1-102(A)(6) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), DR 6-
101(A)(3) (prohibiting neglect of an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to carry out a contract of 
employment for legal services), and 7-106(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
disregarding a standing rule of a tribunal or a ruling of a tribunal made in the 
course of a proceeding) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.1(requiring a lawyer to provide 
competent representation to a client), 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with 
reasonable diligence in representing a client), 3.1(prohibiting a lawyer from 
                                      
2 Although the panel did not provide written notice of an intent to dismiss Count IV, as required in 
Gov.Bar R. V(6)(H), we will treat the failure to present evidence as to that count as a 
recommendation to dismiss.   
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
bringing or defending a proceeding that is unsupported by law or lacks a good-
faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law), and 
8.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating or attempting to violate the Ohio Rules 
of Professional Conduct). 
{¶ 14} The panel concluded that the stipulated violations were supported 
by clear and convincing evidence offered in support of Counts I, II, and III of the 
amended complaint.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and 
conclusions of law. 
Sanction 
{¶ 15} The panel agreed with the parties’ proposed sanction to suspend 
Trivers from the practice of law for two years, with 18 months stayed on the 
condition that Trivers work with a monitor. 
{¶ 16} The panel also weighed the existence of aggravating and 
mitigating factors.  The parties stipulated that mitigating factors included that 
Trivers had cooperated in the proceedings, had demonstrated no selfish motive, 
and had received additional sanctions from the bankruptcy court.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b), (d), and (f).  The panel also took into account four 
character letters that described Trivers as an individual of good character and an 
active member of his community and church.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e). 
In addition, the panel acknowledged a psychiatric evaluation performed in 2008 
that indicated that Trivers was fit and competent to practice law and Trivers’s 
own testimony that he would work with a monitor, use co-counsel when 
necessary, and discontinue handling bankruptcy matters. 
{¶ 17} The panel also found certain aggravating factors existed, including 
Trivers’s prior disciplinary action, a pattern of misconduct based on his repeated 
failure to comply with the bankruptcy court’s orders, and the existence of multiple 
offenses.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), and (d). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 18} The panel also considered the sanctions imposed in a similar case 
that involved ethical violations resulting from repeated failures to comply with 
filing requirements in bankruptcy court, to appear as ordered, and to comply with 
orders to disgorge fees and pay assessed fines.  Cleveland  Metro. Bar Assn. v. 
Nance, 124 Ohio St.3d 57, 2009-Ohio-5957, 918 N.E.2d 1000.  In that case, the 
respondent likewise had committed multiple offenses and had been sanctioned in 
a prior disciplinary matter.  Id. at ¶ 12.  We suspended the respondent from the 
practice of law for one year, with the last six months stayed with conditions. 
{¶ 19} But the panel concluded that Trivers warranted the sanction 
stipulated by the parties, which was greater than the sanction in Nance, because 
even though he had acknowledged his wrongdoing, he continued to place a 
majority of blame on his failure to receive notices rather than on his failure to stay 
current on court proceedings or to become familiar with electronic filings.  The 
panel stated that Trivers’s misconduct was more widespread than in Nance, 
involved more cases, and was due to carelessness and lack of attention similar to 
his previous disciplinary action.  See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Trainor, 129 Ohio 
St.3d 100, 2011-Ohio-2645, 950 N.E.2d 524, ¶ 10-11. 
{¶ 20} The board, however, increased the sanction on its review, 
recommending that Trivers be suspended from the practice of law for two years, 
with one year stayed, conditioned on Trivers’s (1) completing six hours of 
continuing legal education on law-office management, (2) completing one year of 
monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(B), during which the 
monitor should ensure that Trivers practices only in those areas in which he is 
competent, and (3) engaging in no further misconduct. 
{¶ 21} Neither party has objected to the board’s recommendation of a 
greater sanction. 
{¶ 22} Having examined the evidence presented, the parties’ stipulations, 
and the aggravating and mitigating factors, we agree with the board that the more 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
appropriate sanction is a two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions.  
Accordingly, we suspend Trivers from the practice of law for two years, with one 
year stayed, conditioned on Trivers’s (1) completing six hours of continuing legal 
education on law-office management, in addition to the general requirements of 
Gov.Bar R. X(3)(G), (2) completing one year of monitored probation in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(B), during which the monitor should ensure 
that Trivers practice only in those areas in which he is competent, and (3) 
engaging in no further misconduct. 
{¶ 23} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Plunkett Cooney and Amelia A. Bower; and Eugene Whetzel, for relator. 
James E. Arnold & Associates, L.P.A., and Alvin E. Mathews Jr., for 
respondent. 
______________________