Title: Cleveland v. Frazier

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland v. Frazier, 96 Ohio St.3d 46, 2002-Ohio-2994.] 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. FRAZIER. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Frazier, 96 Ohio St.3d 46, 2002-Ohio-2994.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Use of client funds 
deposited in attorney’s client trust account. 
(No. 2001-2203 — Submitted March 26, 2002 — Decided July 3, 2002) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-102. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On December 4, 2000, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent, Arthur Ray Frazier of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0063635, with several violations of the Code of Professional 
Conduct arising out of his use of client funds deposited in his trust account.  
Respondent answered, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. 
{¶2} 
The panel found that in May 1998, respondent received a check for 
$17,530 from his client, Ruby Jackson, which was to be used to pay Jackson’s 
former husband pursuant to a divorce decree that awarded the family home to 
Jackson.  Respondent deposited $13,372 of the funds in his client trust account 
and $4,158 into his business account.  During May and June, respondent made 
personal and business disbursements and disbursements “for certain usage” 
totaling $10,135.50 from the trust account, and it was not  until July 10, 1998, that 
he paid Jackson’s husband $9,000 of the amount due. 
{¶3} 
On July 24, 1998, he paid the husband $4,000 and on July 31, 
1998, he gave him a check for $3,000.  This last check was dishonored for 
insufficient funds and had to be renegotiated.  On August 22, 1998, respondent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
issued a final check for $1,530 to the husband.  It also was dishonored and had to 
be renegotiated.  Both before and after this last payment respondent made 
additional personal disbursements from his client trust account. 
{¶4} 
The panel found that in August 1998, respondent’s trust account, in 
which he deposited not only Jackson’s money but also the money of other clients, 
had a negative balance due to his withdrawals for personal and business expenses.  
After July 1999, respondent did not maintain a client trust account, except for a 
period beginning early 2000 and ending March 2001, and did not have such an 
account at the time of the hearing.  Respondent testified that he did not know 
whether he received any client funds during the time he had no client trust 
account, but that if he had he would have deposited them in his business account. 
{¶5} 
Finally, the panel found that respondent did not cooperate in 
relator’s attempt to investigate the grievance filed by Jackson. 
{¶6} 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-
101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 9-102(A) (a 
lawyer shall not commingle funds of  a client with personal funds), 9-102(B)(4) (a 
lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client funds or property to which the client is 
entitled), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or 
testify in an investigation or hearing).  The panel recommended that respondent 
be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  The board adopted 
the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
{¶7} 
We have examined the record and adopt the findings, conclusions, 
and recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2002 
3 
 
Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., Thomas L. Anastos and Brett A. Wall, for 
relator. 
 
Arthur Ray Frazier, pro se. 
__________________