Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Mason

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Mason, 118 Ohio St.3d 412, 2008-Ohio-2704.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. MASON. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Mason, 118 Ohio St.3d 412, 2008-Ohio-2704.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disbarment. 
(No. 2007-2322 — Submitted February 6, 2008 — Decided June 12, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-040. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Patrick S. Mason of Sandusky, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0076884, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 2003. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint charging 
respondent with several violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  
Respondent failed to answer the complaint, and pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F), 
relator filed a motion for default judgment, which was referred to a master 
commissioner.  The master commissioner made findings of fact and conclusions 
of law and a recommendation.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline adopted the master commissioner’s findings and recommendation. 
{¶ 3} The board recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent’s 
license to practice law based on findings that he committed several disciplinary 
violations.  We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct.  We reject, however, 
the board’s recommended sanction and hold instead that respondent should be 
permanently disbarred. 
Misconduct 
Mitchell Grievance 
{¶ 4} In October 2004, Cheryl Mitchell hired respondent to represent her 
on a personal-injury claim.  Mitchell was initially represented by Guy Barone, but 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Barone withdrew as counsel in September 2004.  Mitchell agreed to pay 
respondent a one-third contingent fee on any settlement or verdict award.  
Respondent agreed to protect Barone’s interest in the attorney fees and expenses 
arising from Barone’s earlier representation of Mitchell. 
{¶ 5} In April 2005, respondent notified Mitchell that her case had been 
settled for $13,750.  Although she signed a settlement release and endorsed the 
settlement check that same month, Mitchell did not receive a check or an 
accounting until December 2005, when respondent gave her a check for $4,091.67 
as her share of the settlement proceeds.  Mitchell deposited the check, but the 
check was returned because it was written against a bank account that did not 
exist.  Mitchell incurred banking charges when the settlement check failed to 
clear.  Moreover, despite her repeated demands, respondent has never paid 
Mitchell any proceeds from the settlement of her case. 
{¶ 6} When Mitchell signed the settlement release in April, she informed 
respondent that she was being sued for unpaid medical bills.  Respondent assured 
Mitchell that he would pay the medical bills with her settlement proceeds.  
Respondent sent a settlement statement to Mitchell reflecting that he had deducted 
$2,800 from the settlement proceeds to pay an outstanding medical bill.  But 
respondent never paid any money to satisfy this bill, and Mitchell’s wages were 
garnished until she was able to pay this bill using other means. 
{¶ 7} Upon settling Mitchell’s case, respondent took $4,583.33 as his 
attorney fee, which was one-third of Mitchell’s $13,750 settlement.  Respondent 
apparently agreed to pay Barone 45 percent of his one-third contingent fee.  But 
instead of deducting Barone’s share from his own contingent fee, respondent 
deducted Barone’s $2,025 share from Mitchell’s settlement.  As a result, fees paid 
to respondent and Barone totaled $6,608.33, almost 50 percent of Mitchell’s total 
settlement proceeds. 
January Term, 2008 
3 
{¶ 8} Based on respondent’s misconduct with regard to the Mitchell 
matter, the board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely 
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 2-107(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from dividing fees with lawyers not in the same firm where the division is not in 
proportion to the services performed by each lawyer), 2-107(A)(2) (requiring the 
disclosure in writing of the terms of the division of fees), 2-107(A)(3) (prohibiting 
the sharing of unreasonable fees among lawyers not in the same firm), 6-
101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to carry out a contract 
of employment entered into with the client for professional services), 7-101(A)(3) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally prejudicing or damaging his client during 
the course of the professional relationship), 9-102(B)(3) (requiring a lawyer to 
maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client 
coming into the lawyer’s possession and failing to render appropriate accounts to 
the clients regarding those funds), and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer to 
promptly pay or deliver upon request funds to which the client is entitled). 
Young Grievance 
{¶ 9} Vicky Young hired respondent to represent her in a civil-rights 
action against her employer.  Respondent accepted a one-third contingent fee to 
represent Young. 
{¶ 10} Respondent and Young attended a mediation conference in 
February 2006, where Young agreed to accept $6,000 to settle her claim.  
Respondent met with Young to sign the settlement and told her that he would 
“overnight” the agreement to opposing counsel to expedite receipt of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
settlement proceeds.  Respondent also informed her that she could revoke the 
settlement within 20 days. 
{¶ 11} After a delay in receiving the settlement money, Young instructed 
respondent to revoke the settlement.  But because respondent failed to revoke the 
settlement within the 20-day time period, Young was locked into a settlement she 
no longer wanted. 
{¶ 12} Young made numerous attempts to contact respondent, who never 
responded.  In May 2006, she learned that respondent had never sent the 
settlement paperwork to opposing counsel.  Young fired respondent and worked 
directly with opposing counsel to obtain her $6,000 settlement.  She had also paid 
respondent a $175 fee to meet with her former employer.  Although the former 
employer refused to meet with them, respondent kept the fee. 
{¶ 13} With respect to the above misconduct, the board found that 
respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3). 
Graves Grievance 
{¶ 14} Jerrell Graves hired respondent to defend him against two felony 
charges and a misdemeanor.  Graves paid respondent $900. 
{¶ 15} Respondent made court appearances on Graves’s behalf in Lucas 
County Common Pleas Court and Toledo Municipal Court, but respondent failed 
to appear for a scheduled court date in common pleas court on July 13, 2006.  
Graves tried several times to contact respondent, but respondent never returned 
his calls and was never available at his office when Graves appeared there in 
person. 
{¶ 16} On August 2, 2006, respondent failed to appear at a pretrial in 
Toledo Municipal Court.  Respondent also failed to inform Graves of the 
scheduled pretrial, and as a result, the municipal court issued a bench warrant for 
Graves when he failed to appear. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
{¶ 17} Graves also gave respondent some documents relating to his felony 
charges that Graves believes are exculpatory.  Respondent did not return these 
documents so that Graves’s new counsel could use them in his defense. 
{¶ 18} Based on the foregoing, the board found that respondent had 
violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3). 
Gardner Grievance 
{¶ 19} In May 2006, Alan Gardner retained respondent to represent him 
on a criminal domestic-violence charge.  Gardner paid respondent $800 as a 
retainer. 
{¶ 20} Respondent spoke with Gardner twice by phone and met with 
Gardner once in his office.  Respondent appeared for a pretrial hearing in June 
2006, but thereafter, Gardner was unable to contact respondent.  Respondent did 
not return Gardner’s phone calls, and when Gardner went to respondent’s office, 
the office had been vacated.  Gardner was forced to retain other counsel to 
complete his case. 
{¶ 21} With regard to the Gardner matter, the board found that respondent 
had violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(2). 
Failure to Cooperate in Disciplinary Investigation 
{¶ 22} Beginning in March 2006, relator received five grievances against 
respondent.  Relator made numerous attempts to contact respondent at various 
addresses, but each address proved to be either incorrect or out of date.  In 
December 2006, relator retained an investigator affiliated with the Office of 
Disciplinary Counsel to locate respondent.  After six months of diligent effort, the 
investigator was unsuccessful. 
{¶ 23} Relator sent notices of four of the grievances to respondent.  In 
May 2006, respondent contacted relator by phone, acknowledged receipt of the 
grievances, and promised to respond.  No further communication was received 
from respondent, and further attempts to contact him proved futile. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 24} In June 2007, the board attempted to serve respondent with a copy 
of the complaint, but the complaint was returned with a notation that it was 
undeliverable as addressed and could not be forwarded.  Service was later 
perfected through the Clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(11)(B).  Respondent did not answer the complaint. 
{¶ 25} By ignoring relator’s investigative inquiries and failing to answer 
the complaint, respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to 
cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 26} In recommending a sanction, the board considered the following 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 27} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had acted 
with dishonest or selfish motives.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  The board also 
found a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and a lack of cooperation in the 
disciplinary process.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), and (e).  Finally, the 
board noted the vulnerability of and resulting harm to the victims of respondent’s 
misconduct and respondent’s failure to make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(h) and (i). 
{¶ 28} In mitigation, the board found that respondent had no prior 
disciplinary record, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  We do note, however, that 
respondent was briefly suspended in 2007 for failing to comply with this court’s 
attorney-registration requirements. 
{¶ 29} The relator and the master commissioner recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law indefinitely.  The board adopted 
the recommendation. 
Review 
January Term, 2008 
7 
{¶ 30} Respondent does not challenge the board’s findings of misconduct 
or the recommended sanction.  We have reviewed the board’s record and its 
report, and we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-
102(A)(6), 2-107(A)(1), 2-107(A)(2), 2-107(A)(3), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-
101(A)(3), 9-102(B)(3), and 9-102(B)(4) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
{¶ 31} We do not, however, accept the board’s recommendation of an 
indefinite suspension.  Disbarment is generally the sanction when a lawyer’s 
neglect of a client’s case is coupled with misappropriation of the client’s money 
and other professional misconduct.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Glatki (2000), 88 
Ohio St.3d 381, 384, 726 N.E.2d 993. 
{¶ 32} In this case, respondent has engaged in a continuous course of 
conduct involving deceit, misappropriation of clients’ funds, neglect of clients’ 
cases, failure to account for fees, failure to make restitution, and failure to 
cooperate in the investigation of this misconduct.  Respondent’s repeated 
misconduct demonstrates that he is not fit to practice law.  Indeed, we have 
disbarred attorneys for similar misconduct.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, 
114 Ohio St.3d 466, 2007-Ohio-4260, 873 N.E.2d 273, and Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Ross, 107 Ohio St.3d 191, 2005-Ohio-6179, 837 N.E.2d 773. 
{¶ 33} Accordingly, respondent is permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
LANZINGER, J., dissents and would indefinitely suspend the respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan B. Cherry and John A. Borell Jr., for relator. 
______________________