Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Bruce

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Bruce, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-85.] 
 
 
 
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. 2020-OHIO-85 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BRUCE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bruce, Slip Opinion No.  
2020-Ohio-85.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Conditionally stayed one-year suspension. 
(No. 2019-1076—Submitted September 11, 2019—Decided January 16, 2020.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2018-071. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Matthew Gilbert Bruce, of West Chester, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0083769, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2008. 
{¶ 2} In a formal complaint filed with the Board of Professional Conduct 
on December 27, 2018, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Bruce with four 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct relating to his attempts to collect 
money owed to him pursuant to a residential lease agreement. 
{¶ 3} The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors. 
{¶ 4} A panel of the board conducted a hearing and issued a report finding 
that Bruce committed the stipulated violations and recommending that he be 
suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully stayed on the condition that 
he engage in no further misconduct.  The board adopted the panel’s report and 
recommendation, and no objections have been filed. 
{¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and agree that a 
conditionally stayed one-year suspension is the appropriate sanction for Bruce’s 
misconduct. 
 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} On November 30, 2012, Bruce entered into an agreement with Laura 
and Greg Zetts to lease a residential property Bruce owned in Medina, Ohio.  The 
lease agreement included an option to purchase the property, and Bruce entered into 
a purchase agreement with the Zettses on March 31, 2017.  The Zettses purchased 
the property on May 31, 2017. 
{¶ 7} In the meantime, Bruce had not received rent payments from the 
Zettses for April and May 2017.  Although the Zettses had issued five checks to 
Bruce to pay the rent due, each of those checks was returned for insufficient funds. 
{¶ 8} Following the sale of the property, Bruce began to e-mail and call the 
Zettses regarding their outstanding rent payments.  On June 12, 2017, having 
received no response, Bruce sent Laura an e-mail to inform her that he would file a 
civil action against her if he did not receive payment by June 19.  The e-mail further 
stated: “As I’m sure you are aware, under Ohio law, it is a felony to pass bad checks 
in the amount you have bounced in my accounts over the last six months. * * * 
[Y]ou have failed to deposit good funds to remedy.  If you fail to make the payment 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
described above, I will be forced to file a police report with the Medina Police 
Department.” 
{¶ 9} On June 19, Bruce followed up with a text informing Laura that if she 
did not deposit $3,010 into his account that day, he would file a lawsuit and a police 
report against her and Greg.  That same day, Laura’s employer, attorney Vincent 
Stafford, called Bruce to discuss the matter, thereby putting Bruce on notice that 
the Zettses were represented by counsel. 
{¶ 10} On June 20, Bruce e-mailed Stafford demanding a payment of 
$4,515 to avoid civil and criminal litigation.  Stafford informed Bruce that the 
Zettses contested his allegations and cautioned him that his threats to have the 
Zettses prosecuted while he pursued his civil claims were “grossly inappropriate.”  
Bruce replied to Stafford, stating that his comments about filing a police report were 
not threats and that he had “very clearly and explicitly laid out exactly what I intend 
to do if the Zetts[es] do not pay me what they owe me.”  He also reiterated that 
Laura had committed a felony. 
{¶ 11} On July 21, Bruce filed a civil complaint against the Zettses in the 
Medina County Municipal Court.  He continued to communicate directly with the 
Zettses after filing the complaint—even after September 1, when attorneys Mark 
Owens and Natalie Grubb entered an appearance on behalf of the Zettses and filed 
a motion for leave to plead.  In responding to a request for information from Owens 
and Grubb, Bruce renewed his threat to file criminal charges against the Zettses.  
And he reiterated that threat during a November 8 pretrial conference, maintaining 
that such a threat was “only impermissible if you have no basis.” 
{¶ 12} The Zettses answered Bruce’s civil complaint and asserted several 
counterclaims against him, and in January 2018, Bruce e-mailed their counsel an 
offer to settle the matter for $2,000.  The Zettses rejected the offer. 
{¶ 13} On February 1, Bruce filed a criminal complaint against Greg Zetts.  
He e-mailed a copy of the complaint to Laura and the Zettses’ counsel and offered 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
to drop the criminal charges in exchange for a payment of $4,000 and a mutual 
release of all claims.  The following week, he sent Laura and the Zettses’ counsel a 
letter stating, “I just received the attached letter from the Supreme Court of Ohio 
Disciplinary Counsel’s office.  It appears Ms. Zetts filed a grievance against me.  
Of course, the grievance was dismissed, but I demand to know immediately the 
basis for Ms. Zetts’ grievance.  I do not take kindly to meritless grievances * * *.” 
{¶ 14} The day before Greg Zetts’s arraignment, his criminal-defense 
counsel sent Bruce an e-mail offering $3,150 to settle the matter.  Bruce replied, 
stating that he would accept the offer provided that the Zettses agreed to release all 
claims against him.  He sent a copy of his response directly to Laura without Owens 
and Grubb’s permission.  After Owens and Grubb attempted to negotiate an 
additional matter to settle the civil action, Bruce informed them that he and Laura 
had already verbally agreed to resolve the dispute.  That same day, he asked Laura 
to confirm by text message that she and Greg had agreed to pay $3,150 in monthly 
payments of $500 in exchange for a full mutual release of all claims that they had 
against each other. 
{¶ 15} Several days later, Owens and Grubb informed Bruce that the Zettses 
were willing to settle Bruce’s civil and criminal claims for $3,150 but that they 
were unwilling to withdraw their counterclaims against him.  They also advised 
him that attorneys are not permitted to threaten criminal prosecution to gain an 
advantage in a civil matter.  Bruce replied that his actions were permissible and that 
he planned to enforce the agreement that he had negotiated directly with Laura 
without Owens and Grubb’s knowledge. 
{¶ 16} The criminal charges against Greg Zetts were dismissed on March 
27, 2018.  That day, Bruce entered into a confidential settlement agreement and 
release with the Zettses in which they represented that they had not filed any claims, 
complaints, charges, or lawsuits against Bruce with any governmental agency, this 
court, or any other court and that they would immediately withdraw any claims they 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
may have filed against Bruce.  The next day, Laura e-mailed relator and asked to 
withdraw the grievance that she and Greg had filed against Bruce. 
{¶ 17} The parties stipulated and the board found that Bruce’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(e) (prohibiting a lawyer from presenting, participating in 
presenting, or threatening to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage 
in a civil matter) and 4.2 (prohibiting a lawyer from communicating about the 
subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by 
another lawyer unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized 
by law or a court order).  They also agreed that his inclusion of a provision in the 
settlement agreement that prevented the Zettses from filing a grievance with a 
disciplinary authority and required them to withdraw any pending disciplinary 
grievances violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).  We adopt these findings 
of misconduct and, in accord with the parties’ stipulations, dismiss one remaining 
alleged rule violation. 
Sanction 
{¶ 18} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 19} The parties stipulated that two aggravating factors are present—
Bruce acted with a selfish motive and committed multiple offenses.  See Gov.Bar 
R. V(13)(B)(2) and (4).  The board also attributed aggravating effect to the fact that 
he continued his course of conduct even after the Zettses’ counsel informed him of 
its wrongful nature.  In mitigation, the parties stipulated that Bruce has no prior 
discipline, had made full and free disclosure to the board and demonstrated a 
cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, and had presented evidence of his 
good character and reputation.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), and (5).  In 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
addition, the board found that Bruce had recognized the wrongful nature of his 
conduct, was remorseful, and had accepted full responsibility for his actions. 
{¶ 20} In considering the appropriate sanction for Bruce’s misconduct, the 
board examined prior cases in which we imposed a range of sanctions on attorneys 
who committed some of the rule violations at issue here.  At the least severe end of 
the range, we publicly reprimanded an attorney who threatened to file criminal 
charges against a former client for nonpayment of legal fees.  See Cincinnati Bar 
Assn. v. Cohen, 86 Ohio St.3d 100, 712 N.E.2d 118 (1999). 
{¶ 21} At the opposite end of the range, we imposed a one-year suspension 
with six months conditionally stayed on an attorney who not only threatened to 
present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter but also acted on 
behalf of a client to harass or maliciously injure another person and suggested that 
he would improperly influence public officials to achieve the desired outcome in 
the client’s case.  See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 164, 2006-
Ohio-550, 842 N.E.2d 35. 
{¶ 22} The board also considered several cases between those extremes, in 
which we imposed conditionally stayed one-year suspensions on attorneys whose 
misconduct had some similarities to Bruce’s.  See, e.g., Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Cameron, 130 Ohio St.3d 299, 2011-Ohio-5200, 958 N.E.2d 138; Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Bennett, 146 Ohio St.3d 237, 2016-Ohio-3045, 54 N.E.3d 1232; 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Dearfield, 130 Ohio St.3d 363, 2011-Ohio-5295, 958 
N.E.2d 910.  In Cameron and Bennett, the attorneys communicated directly with a 
party to a legal dispute without the consent of that party’s legal counsel.  But those 
attorneys committed additional acts of misconduct that Bruce did not commit.  For 
example, Cameron also made false representations to the trial court, and Bennett 
also neglected several clients’ legal matters and failed to appear at numerous 
hearings and status conferences, including his own contempt hearing.  And 
although Dearfield conditioned a client’s refund on the withdrawal of a disciplinary 
January Term, 2020 
 
7
grievance, he also charged a nonrefundable fee without advising the client that he 
might be entitled to a refund if Dearfield did not complete the representation. 
{¶ 23} The board acknowledged that none of the cases it considered 
involved the same combination of violations present here.  Nonetheless, noting the 
relevant aggravating factors and Bruce’s credible testimony, remorse, and 
acceptance of full responsibility for his misconduct, the board concluded that 
Bruce’s misconduct warranted a sanction toward the middle of the range of 
sanctions imposed in those cases.  Therefore, the board recommends that we 
suspend Bruce from the practice of law for one year and stay the entire suspension 
on the condition that he engage in no further misconduct. 
{¶ 24} Having reviewed the record and considered the unique combination 
of ethical violations and aggravating and mitigating factors present in this case in 
light of our precedent, we accept the board’s analysis and agree that a conditionally 
stayed one-year suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
{¶ 25} Accordingly, Matthew Gilbert Bruce is suspended from the practice 
of law for one year, fully stayed on the condition that he engage in no further 
misconduct.  Costs are taxed to Bruce. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald M. Scheetz, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Coughlan Law Firm, L.L.C., and Jonathan Edward Coughlan, for 
respondent. 
_________________