Title: Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cameron

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cameron, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5200.] 
 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-5200 
MEDINA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. CAMERON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cameron,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5200.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a 
tribunal—Communicating with a person represented by counsel without 
the other counsel’s consent—One-year suspension stayed on condition of 
no further misconduct. 
(No. 2010-2173—Submitted May 24, 2011—Decided October 12, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-088. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, John Brooks Cameron of Medina, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0055800, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1991.  In 
December 2009, relator, Medina County Bar Association, filed a two-count 
complaint charging Cameron with two violations of the Rules of Professional 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Conduct, arising from his conduct during litigation against him for the collection 
of fees for expert consulting services. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline held a hearing and issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
recommended sanction. The board adopted the panel’s findings and conclusions 
and recommended that Cameron be suspended from the practice of law for six 
months. 
{¶ 3} Cameron objects to the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and recommended sanction.  For the reasons that follow, we find that 
respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 4.2 (prohibiting a lawyer from communicating 
with a person represented by counsel without the other counsel’s consent) and 
3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact 
or law to a tribunal) but reject the board’s recommended sanction and impose a 
one-year suspension, with the entire year stayed on conditions. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The testimony and evidence before the hearing panel establish that 
Cameron hired the president of Safety Through Engineering, Inc. (“STE”) to be 
an expert witness in a slip-and-fall case and paid him a $2,000 retainer.  The 
expert prepared a report and in April 2007 sent Cameron an invoice with an 
amount owing of $7008. 
{¶ 5} Cameron testified at the disciplinary hearing that he discussed the 
invoice with the expert and indicated to him that the invoice would be paid when 
the slip-and-fall case settled.  When that case did not settle, the expert asked him 
in June 2007 to make monthly payments of a set amount, and he testified that he 
agreed to send “something” on the bill periodically.  According to the expert, 
however, Cameron agreed to make monthly payments of $500, but no payments 
were made. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
{¶ 6} In June 2008, an attorney for STE filed a complaint against 
Cameron on the account.  Cameron was served with the summons and complaint 
by certified mail but failed to file an answer.  In August 2008, STE’s attorney 
filed a motion for a default judgment, and a nonoral hearing on the motion was 
scheduled for September 5, 2008. 
{¶ 7} Although his testimony was disputed by the expert, Cameron 
testified that before he received notice of the default hearing, he contacted the 
expert directly and engaged in settlement discussions.  He also testified that they 
agreed that he would pay $500 a month on the account.  Two days before the 
hearing, when he had not received a notice dismissing the lawsuit, he contacted 
the expert again, and according to Cameron, the expert said that he had not 
received any payment.  Cameron mailed the expert a check for $700 and called 
the next day to verify receipt of the check.  He then had his associate prepare and 
file a motion that represented to the court that the parties had reached a settlement 
and that requested a brief continuance to file an answer if the complaint was not 
dismissed before the September 5 hearing.  Cameron’s first contact with STE’s 
attorney occurred after the motion for a continuance was filed.  According to 
STE’s attorney, Cameron informed him that a motion for a continuance had just 
been filed and requested that they work out a settlement. 
{¶ 8} When the court granted the motion for continuance the next day, 
STE’s attorney filed a motion for reconsideration.  The expert and STE’s attorney 
submitted affidavits to the court disputing that a settlement had been reached.  
Cameron opposed the motion for reconsideration with his own affidavit, averring 
that when he first received the complaint he attempted to contact STE’s attorney; 
but when that proved to be unsuccessful, he spoke with the expert directly and the 
two reached a settlement.  He also stated in the affidavit that he learned that 
STE’s lawsuit had not been dismissed when he received the notice for the default-
judgment hearing.  He said that he then contacted the expert a second time and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
that they reached a settlement requiring him to immediately send a payment of 
$700 to the expert, which he did. 
On the day of the hearing on the motion to 
reconsider, STE’s attorney and Cameron’s associate reached a settlement, and 
STE’s complaint was later dismissed.  STE’s attorney then filed a grievance with 
relator. 
{¶ 9} Count One of the complaint charges respondent with violating 
Prof.Cond.R. 4.2, which provides, “In representing a client, a lawyer shall not 
communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer 
knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the 
consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.”  
(Emphasis sic.)  Based on the facts and Cameron’s admission at oral argument, 
we agree with the board that the evidence is clear and convincing that Cameron 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 4.2 when he contacted the expert after STE’s lawsuit was 
filed and discussed settlement of that suit without the consent of STE’s attorney.1 
{¶ 10} Count Two of the complaint alleges that respondent violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 3.3, which provides: 
{¶ 11} “(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly do any of the following: 
{¶ 12} “(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by 
the lawyer.” (Emphasis sic.) 
{¶ 13} The board acknowledged that the testimony differed whether a 
settlement was reached between the parties, but the panel, as trier of fact, 
concluded that Cameron’s representations to the court that a settlement had been 
reached were simply not credible.  STE’s attorney testified that he was contacted 
                                                 
1 Although Cameron did not raise the issue whether an attorney who is acting pro se in a lawsuit as 
a party can contact the other party, we note other jurisdictions have said that the contact violates a 
similar professional rule.  See In re Haley (2006), 156 Wash.2d 324, 126 P.3d 1262; Runsvold v. 
Idaho State Bar (1996), 129 Idaho 419, 925 P.2d 1118; In re Discipline of Shaefer (2001), 117 
Nev. 496, 25 P.3d 191; In re Disciplinary Action Against Lucas, 2010 N.D. 187, 789 N.W.2d 73. 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
after the motion for a continuance was filed and that Cameron requested in that 
conversation that they settle the matter.  This testimony supports the expert’s 
testimony that he did not agree to settle the case after the lawsuit was filed and is 
at odds with Cameron’s representations to the court, and the panel, that the case 
had already been settled.  We therefore agree with the board that Cameron 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3. 
Sanction 
{¶ 14} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties the lawyer violated and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 
2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818.  To determine the appropriate sanction, we 
consider a nonexhaustive list of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, 
which are found in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing 
Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline ("BCGD Proc.Reg.").  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  In 
mitigation, the board noted that Cameron had no prior disciplinary record, BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), and that there was evidence of Cameron’s good character 
and professionalism as testified to in letters from several attorneys and a 
municipal-court bailiff and at the hearing by a Medina County Court of Common 
Pleas judge, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e). 
{¶ 15} With respect to aggravating factors, the board determined that 
Cameron displayed a dishonest and selfish motive, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), 
and that the grievance involved multiple offenses, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d).  
It also found that Cameron refused to acknowledge that he had inappropriately 
bypassed counsel for STE and negotiated directly with the expert witness, BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 16} Cameron argues that the evidence does not support a finding that 
he acted with a selfish or dishonest motive or that he failed to acknowledge that 
he had inappropriately contacted the expert witness.  Our review of the record 
shows that when he was questioned by a member of the panel, Cameron stated 
that he would absolutely have handled his approach with the expert differently 
because it was not worth putting himself in this situation.  We therefore sustain 
Cameron’s objection to the aggravating factor that he did not express remorse for 
his conduct. 
{¶ 17} Relator had requested a one-year suspension, but the panel and 
board recommended a six-month suspension.  Although an actual suspension 
from the practice of law is the general sanction when an attorney engages in 
dishonest conduct, a lesser sanction may be appropriate when the misconduct is 
an isolated incident in an attorney’s career or when little or no harm resulted from 
the misconduct. Disciplinary Counsel v. Cuckler, 101 Ohio St.3d 318, 2004-Ohio-
784, 804 N.E.2d 966, ¶ 10.  Given Cameron’s misconduct as it relates to this 
single matter, the length of his career, and the limited harm attributable to the 
misconduct, a one-year stayed suspension is appropriate. 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, respondent John Brooks Cameron is suspended from 
the practice of law for a period of one year, but the suspension is stayed on the 
condition that he commit no further misconduct.  If he fails to comply with this 
condition, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the entire one-year suspension.  
Costs of these proceedings shall be taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
John Porter; and The Bailey Law Firm and William E. Steiger II, for 
relator. 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
John Brooks Cameron, pro se. 
______________________