Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Higgins

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Higgins, 117 Ohio St.3d 473, 2008-Ohio-1509.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HIGGINS. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Higgins,  
117 Ohio St.3d 473, 2008-Ohio-1509.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Practicing law while under suspension—Failure 
to cooperate in disciplinary investigation—Multiple additional ethical 
violations—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2007-1953 — Submitted January 9, 2008 — Decided April 3, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-046. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Brian Patricc Higgins, Attorney Registration No. 
0075652, last registered address in Lakewood, Ohio, was admitted to the practice 
of law in Ohio in 2002.  Respondent’s license to practice law is currently under 
suspension pursuant to two separate orders.  In the first order, we suspended 
respondent from practice as of April 8, 2005, for his failure to comply with the 
requirements for continuing legal education (“CLE”) of Gov.Bar R. X.  See In re 
Higgins, 105 Ohio St.3d 1490, 2005-Ohio-1647, 825 N.E.2d 615.  Our second 
order suspended respondent as of December 5, 2005, for his failure to comply 
with the attorney-registration requirements of Gov.Bar R. VI.  See In re Higgins, 
107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends that we now indefinitely suspend respondent’s license based on 
findings that he continued to practice law while under suspension and that he did 
not cooperate in the investigation of this misconduct.  We agree that respondent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
committed professional misconduct as found by the board and that an indefinite 
suspension is appropriate. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with multiple 
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and with failing to cooperate 
in a disciplinary investigation as required by Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  The board 
attempted to serve respondent with notice of the complaint by certified mail at the 
address on file with this court's Attorney Registration Section and at his last 
known residential address, but the notices went unclaimed.  The board then served 
notice of the complaint on the Clerk of the Supreme Court under Gov.Bar R. 
V(11)(B) (the Clerk is an agent for service of notice when a lawyer conceals his 
or her whereabouts). 
{¶ 4} Respondent did not answer the complaint, and relator moved for 
default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner appointed by the 
board considered the motion for default, making findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and recommending the indefinite suspension.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
Respondent Practiced Law with a Suspended License 
{¶ 5} Robert Nordstrom hired respondent to represent him in his divorce 
on April 13, 2005, shortly after respondent’s suspension for noncompliance with 
CLE requirements.  Nordstrom paid respondent a $500 deposit and agreed to pay 
him at an hourly rate of $75.  Respondent later also agreed to represent Nordstrom 
at the same rate in proceedings to determine custody of his three children.  
Nordstrom had no knowledge of respondent’s suspension. 
{¶ 6} Respondent filed Nordstrom’s complaint for divorce in June 2005, 
notwithstanding his suspension.  He also billed Nordstrom $300, and Nordstrom 
immediately paid the invoice.  Nordstrom received a second bill in August 2005 
for $525 and paid respondent in $50 installments.  After he received a third bill 
January Term, 2008 
3 
for approximately $550 in October 2005, Nordstrom paid $250 in $50 
installments toward the balance. 
{¶ 7} The court scheduled a trial in Nordstrom’s custody dispute for 
December 14, 2005.  Respondent did not attend.  Nordstrom obtained custody of 
the children notwithstanding his lawyer’s absence.  Respondent also did not 
appear at a February 1, 2006 pretrial hearing in Nordstrom’s divorce action.  
Although respondent had called Nordstrom the day before the proceeding and 
instructed him not to go, Nordstrom went to court anyway.  Nordstrom learned 
from a bailiff that respondent had also advised the court that neither he nor his 
client would appear. 
{¶ 8} Respondent also did not appear on March 6, 2006, for the trial in 
Nordstrom’s divorce case.  Another attorney, Christine Kuntz, appeared instead, 
apparently at respondent’s request.  The court rescheduled the trial for May 10, 
2006. 
{¶ 9} Later that March, Nordstrom asked respondent in an e-mail for a 
refund of his retainer and for the return of his file.  In reply, respondent promised 
to return Nordstrom’s file within a week, but Nordstrom received nothing.  
Nordstrom eventually learned of respondent’s April and December 2005 
suspensions, and in May 2006, tried to meet with respondent, but their plans to 
meet fell through.  Respondent eventually did e-mail Nordstrom copies of some 
of the file documents. 
{¶ 10} A few days before the May 10, 2006 trial date in Nordstrom’s 
divorce case, Kuntz reported to Nordstrom that respondent again did not intend to 
appear.  Nordstrom e-mailed respondent, demanding a refund of his retainer.  
Respondent replied that Nordstrom owed an outstanding balance.  Nordstrom e-
mailed respondent back, this time demanding return of all the fees he had paid.  
Nordstrom also threatened to file a grievance, insisting that respondent was not 
entitled to payment for any services rendered while his license was under 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
suspension.  Respondent then agreed to determine how much Nordstrom had paid 
during the suspension period, but Nordstrom never received any refund. 
{¶ 11} The day before the trial in his divorce, Nordstrom retained Mark R. 
Pryatel.  Respondent did not appear on the trial date, but Pryatel did.  The court 
rescheduled the trial, and Nordstrom eventually filed a notice substituting Pryatel 
as his counsel.  In May 2006, Nordstrom filed a grievance against respondent. 
{¶ 12} Respondent undertook Nordstrom’s divorce and child-custody 
cases after his license to practice had been suspended.  Respondent did not 
disclose to his client that he had been suspended and then did little to ensure that 
his client had the representation he needed from another attorney.  We thus agree 
with the board that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) 
(prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 
law), 3-101(B) (prohibiting practicing law in violation of the regulations of the 
legal profession), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted 
legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to seek 
the lawful objectives of a client), and 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment for professional 
services). 
Respondent Failed to Cooperate During the Disciplinary Investigation 
{¶ 13} In June 2006, relator sent respondent notice of Nordstrom’s 
grievance to the office address at which he was registered as an attorney, but the 
notice and a certified letter of inquiry went unclaimed.  In July 2006, relator hand-
delivered notice of the grievance and a letter of inquiry to respondent at a 
residential address in Cleveland.  Respondent did not reply.  In October 2006, 
relator e-mailed respondent at his last known address, stressing the importance of 
his reply to the grievance.  Though the e-mail transmission was apparently 
successful, respondent did not answer. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
{¶ 14} By failing to respond to relator’s investigative efforts, respondent 
violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Sanction 
{¶ 15} When lawyers continue to practice law despite the suspension of 
their licenses and then fail to cooperate in investigations of that misconduct, an 
indefinite suspension is warranted.  See, e.g., Toledo Bar Assn. v. Crandall, 98 
Ohio St.3d 444, 2003-Ohio-1637, 786 N.E.2d 872; Akron Bar Assn. v. Barron 
(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 167, 707 N.E.2d 850; Toledo Bar Assn. v. Christensen 
(1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 71, 671 N.E.2d 30.  Respondent has offered nothing in 
mitigation to warrant a less exacting sanction.  We therefore adopt the board’s 
recommendation. 
{¶ 16} Respondent is suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in 
Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would permanently disbar respondent. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Philip A. King, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________