Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harwood

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harwood, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1466.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-1466 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. HARWOOD. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harwood,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1466.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to exercise independent professional 
judgment on behalf of clients — Failure to maintain professional liability 
insurance — Consent-to-discipline agreement — Six-month stayed 
suspension. 
(No. 2009-2277 — Submitted January 13, 2010 — Decided April 7, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-058. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Christopher S. Harwood of Burlington, Kentucky, 
Attorney Registration No. 0081704, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
2007.  Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint charging respondent 
with violating his oath of office and several Rules of Professional Conduct.  After 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
respondent initially submitted an answer denying that he had committed any 
misconduct, the parties entered into a consent-to-discipline agreement filed 
pursuant to Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure and 
Complaints Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”), in which they stipulated to facts and misconduct and jointly 
proposed a sanction.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
found that respondent committed misconduct by disregarding his duty to exercise 
independent professional judgment on behalf of clients who were facing 
foreclosure and failing to inform his clients that he did not maintain professional 
liability insurance.  The board accepted the proposed sanction and recommends 
that we suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, with 
the entire suspension stayed upon the condition that he commit no further 
misconduct.  We accept the board’s finding of misconduct and agree that a six-
month suspension, with the entire period stayed upon the condition that 
respondent commit no further misconduct, is an appropriate sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 2} The parties stipulated that beginning in August 2008 and 
continuing until the end of January 2009, respondent worked as a sole practitioner 
from his home.  During this period, respondent had no professional liability 
insurance and failed to inform any of his clients of this fact. 
{¶ 3} In September 2008, respondent accepted an offer to perform legal 
work for American Foreclosure Professionals, Inc. and Foreclosure Assistance 
USA, Inc.  (“foreclosure companies”).  Between October 2008 and January 2009, 
respondent represented over 50 clients, including persons who resided in Ohio as 
well as West Virginia and California, whom the foreclosure companies referred to 
him.  Respondent signed a document agreeing to the procedures that the 
foreclosure companies expected him to follow in representing their customers.  
These companies solicited persons who were facing foreclosure and represented 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
that they could save those persons’ homes from foreclosure by negotiating with 
the lender. 
{¶ 4} The foreclosure companies charged between $900 and $1,200 for 
the services they provided and informed customers that the fee included legal 
representation arranged and paid for, in part, by the companies.  The foreclosure 
companies asked their customers to execute a request for legal services and then 
forwarded the executed request and the client’s contact information and goals, 
e.g., keeping or selling the property, to respondent.  Respondent received $100 to 
file an answer in each case referred to him. 
{¶ 5} Upon receiving a referral and an executed agreement for legal 
representation, and generally more than a month before filing an answer, 
respondent would send a case status letter with copies of a motion for 
enlargement of time to respond.  In the letter, respondent asked each client to 
contact him regarding whether the client contested the alleged default in the 
mortgage payment and had any defenses.  If respondent received no answer, he 
would routinely send another status letter repeating these questions and would 
also send a copy of an answer denying the foreclosure allegations. 
{¶ 6} If a motion for summary judgment were filed in the foreclosure 
case, respondent would send another letter to the client with a copy of the motion.  
In the letter, respondent would again ask if the client had any defenses and would 
warn the client that the absence of any defenses meant that respondent had no 
basis to defend against the motion and that the court would enter a judgment for 
the mortgage company against the client.  If the client did not respond, respondent 
generally did not oppose the motion or appear at any hearing. 
{¶ 7} When respondent received notice that summary judgment had been 
entered against a client in a foreclosure case, he routinely sent letters notifying the 
client of the judgment, the scheduling of a sheriff’s sale, and the concluding steps 
of the foreclosure.  Respondent would explain that it was important for the client 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
to contact the foreclosure companies concerning negotiations with the lender.  In 
cases in which the lender negotiated concerning the mortgage default, respondent 
did not participate in the foreclosure companies’ negotiations on behalf of the 
client.  Neither the president of the foreclosure companies nor any of its 
employees is admitted to the practice of law. 
{¶ 8} In January 2009, respondent voluntarily terminated his relationship 
with the foreclosure companies and stopped accepting their referrals.  Afterwards, 
respondent terminated his relationship with referred client having a pending or 
open matter, and he sought leave to withdraw from all pending cases. 
{¶ 9} In that same month, the Ohio Attorney General filed a complaint 
against the foreclosure companies in the Hamilton County Court of Common 
Pleas alleging violations of, inter alia, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, 
R.C. 1345.01 et seq.  The attorney general alleged that the foreclosure companies 
(1) failed to deliver services within the prescribed period of time, (2) knowingly 
sold services to consumers that carried no substantial benefit and resulted in 
detrimental reliance by the consumer, and (3) made false or misleading 
representations to consumers. 
{¶ 10} Respondent now works as a staff attorney for a Kentucky court of 
appeals judge. 
{¶ 11} Respondent admitted and the board found that his conduct violated 
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 and promptness in 
representing a client), 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform a client that he does not 
maintain professional liability insurance), 5.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer), and 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
assisting another to practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of 
the legal profession in that jurisdiction).  We accept respondent’s admission and 
the board’s finding of misconduct. 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} In recommending the six-month stayed suspension, the board 
weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving 
multiple offenses against vulnerable persons, i.e., clients facing foreclosure of 
their homes, which are aggravating factors.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), 
and (h).  Mitigating factors include that respondent had no prior disciplinary 
record, that he lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, that he made a timely effort to 
rectify his misconduct, and that he fully cooperated in the disciplinary 
proceedings.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), and (d).  In addition, the 
parties stipulated that respondent reported his misconduct himself and that he no 
longer actively engages in the private practice of law. 
{¶ 13} We have previously considered disciplinary cases in which a 
lawyer enters into a joint arrangement with a nonattorney company to represent 
clients in mortgage-foreclosure proceedings.  See, e.g., Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Patterson, 124 Ohio St.3d 93, 2009-Ohio-6166, 919 N.E.2d 206; Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Willard, 123 Ohio St.3d 15, 2009-Ohio-3629, 913 N.E.2d 960; 
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Palombaro, 121 Ohio St.3d 351, 2009-Ohio-1223, 
904 N.E.2d 529; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Mullaney, 119 Ohio St.3d 412, 2008-
Ohio-4541, 894 N.E.2d 1210.  These associations present “the same ills as have 
respondent’s alliances – insufficient attorney-client communication and case 
preparation, nonattorney promotion of the lawyer’s legal services, the aiding of 
the unauthorized practice of law, and the sharing of legal fees.  Together, these 
failings signal the surrender of an attorney’s ability to exercise independent 
professional judgment on a client’s behalf and manifest an overarching breach of 
the lawyer’s duty of loyalty to the client.”  Patterson at ¶ 33, citing Willard. 
{¶ 14} Our sanctions in these cases have varied from a public reprimand 
for an inexperienced attorney, see Mullaney at ¶ 40, to a stayed suspension for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
more seasoned attorneys, Mullaney at ¶ 41 and Palombaro, and to a partially 
stayed suspension for other attorneys, as in Patterson.  Unlike the attorney in 
Patterson, who received a harsher sanction, there is no evidence of any prior 
disciplinary record for respondent.  And unlike the inexperienced attorney who 
received a lesser sanction in Mullaney, respondent was not a new associate 
constrained by practices in place at a law firm. 
{¶ 15} Therefore, after considering all of the pertinent factors, we agree 
that a six-month suspension, with the entire suspension stayed upon the condition 
that respondent commit no further misconduct, is commensurate with his 
misconduct.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 
six months, with the entire period stayed on the condition that he commit no 
further misconduct.  If respondent fails to comply with the terms of the stay, the 
stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the six-month suspension.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J.,1 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
John G. Slauson, Rosemary D. Welsh, and Dimity V. Orlet, for relator. 
 
John J. Mueller, L.L.C., and John J. Mueller, for respondent. 
 
______________________ 
                                                 
1. The late Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer participated in the deliberations in, and the final 
resolution of, this case prior to his death.