Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Buren

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. BUREN. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Buren (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disbarment — Engaging in continuing course 
of deceit, misrepresentation, and neglect of duty to clients and bankruptcy 
court. 
(No. 98-1729 — Submitted September 29, 1998 — Decided December 30, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-33. 
 
In December 1997, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a seven-count 
amended complaint charging respondent, Bruce A. Buren of Dayton, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0018235, with violating numerous Disciplinary Rules.  
After personal service of the amended complaint and numerous attempts to contact 
Buren failed, service was made on the Clerk of the Supreme Court as the agent for 
Buren in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  When Buren did not answer or 
otherwise plead to the amended complaint, relator filed a motion for default 
judgment under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). 
 
Based on the amended complaint and the affidavits and deposition attached 
to relator’s motion for default judgment, a panel of the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) made the following 
findings of fact and conclusions of law. 
 
In January 1992, Buren filed a bankruptcy petition on behalf of Unified 
Concepts, Inc. (“Unified”).  Under Section 330, Title 11, U.S.Code, Buren was 
required to fully disclose to the bankruptcy court and all creditors of Unified the 
amount of attorney fees that had been paid in connection with the bankruptcy 
proceeding.  In violation of the foregoing statute, Buren disclosed to the 
 
2
bankruptcy court that he had been paid $1,500 in attorney fees, although he had 
actually been paid $6,000 by February 1992. 
 
Shortly after filing the bankruptcy petition for Unified, Buren advised the 
primary shareholder of Unified that Unified’s business could be continued outside 
bankruptcy by incorporating a new business named Silkolor, Inc. (“Silkolor”).  
Buren represented Unified’s shareholders in incorporating Silkolor and 
recommended that Silkolor purchase Unified’s assets out of bankruptcy under a 
secured party sale from Society Bank after Unified surrendered the assets to the 
bank.  Society Bank refused to participate in the proposed sale. 
 
Silkolor operated its business with the same equipment and customers as 
Unified, generating revenues that were diverted from Unified’s bankruptcy 
proceeding.  There was no evidence that Silkolor operated the business with either 
the consent of Unified’s creditors or the approval of the bankruptcy court.  A 
portion of Silkolor’s revenues was used to pay Buren for legal services he 
provided to Silkolor and Unified both before and after the bankruptcy filing. 
 
The bankruptcy trustee in Unified’s case discovered the improprieties and 
filed an adversary proceeding against Buren in the bankruptcy court.  The trustee 
obtained a default judgment against Buren for over $16,000 in attorney fees taken 
from Unified without disclosure or bankruptcy court approval. 
 
The panel concluded that Buren’s actions relating to the bankruptcy case 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in any other conduct adversely 
reflecting on his fitness to practice law), 2-106(A) (entering into an agreement for, 
charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 7-102(A)(3) 
(concealing or knowingly failing to disclose that which he is required by law to 
 
3
reveal), 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of law or fact), 7-
102(A)(7) (counseling or assisting his client in conduct that the lawyer knows to 
be illegal or fraudulent), and 7-102(A)(8) (knowingly engaging in other illegal 
conduct or conduct contrary to a Disciplinary Rule). 
 
In November 1994, Buren established the law firm of Bruce A. Buren & 
Associates, L.P.A., in which he was the sole shareholder.  Buren employed Isabel 
Suarez as the managing associate attorney for the firm.  As part of her employment 
contract, Suarez, as the attorney for personal injury claimants, assigned the 
proceeds from twelve personal injury cases she had pending at the time of her 
hiring.  From December 1984 through February 1995, Suarez settled these cases 
and deposited the settlement proceeds in the firm’s IOLTA trust account.  Suarez 
diverted over $28,000 in trust funds that were to pay healthcare providers’ claims 
for medical services to the personal injury claimants. She transferred the money to 
the firm’s operating account, and the funds were used to pay firm debts. 
 
In a disciplinary case brought against Suarez, she testified that she 
transferred the funds to the firm’s operating account at Buren’s direction.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Suarez (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 4, 701 N.E.2d 683.  
According to Suarez, Buren was also involved in a check-kiting scheme and had 
applied for a credit card using her name as a co-applicant without her 
authorization.  Buren testified in the disciplinary case that he never advised Suarez 
to transfer the money and that he fired Suarez upon discovering the illegal 
diversion of trust funds.  But Buren never replaced the money in the trust account 
and never reimbursed the medical providers for services rendered to the personal 
injury claimants. 
 
The panel concluded that Buren’s actions concerning the diversion of 
money from his law firm’s IOLTA trust account violated DR 9-102(A) (failing to 
 
4
deposit funds of a client in a bank account where no funds belonging to the lawyer 
or law firm are deposited), 9-109(B)(3) (failing to maintain complete records of 
funds coming into his possession and failing to render an appropriate accounting 
regarding them), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay to client funds in his 
possession to which the client is entitled to receive). 
 
Patricia Segal paid Buren a retainer of $750 to probate the estate of Virgil 
Lee Mullins.  Shortly thereafter, Buren vacated his office and disconnected his 
telephone without leaving any forwarding address.  Segal eventually hired 
different counsel to provide the services for which Buren had been paid. 
 
The panel concluded that Buren violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a 
legal matter entrusted to him) by not providing Segal with the requested services.  
The panel further concluded that Buren violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to 
cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).  The panel recommended that Buren be 
disbarred from the practice of law. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel, and further recommended that the costs of the proceedings be taxed to 
Buren. 
__________________ 
 
Certo & Larson and Peter R. Certo, Jr., for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We concur with the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Buren engaged in a continuing course of deceit, 
misrepresentation, and neglect of duty to his clients and the bankruptcy court.  In 
addition, Buren has failed to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings.  Under these 
circumstances, disbarment is the appropriate sanction.  See, e.g., Cuyahoga Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. Churilla (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 348, 350, 678 N.E.2d 515, 516-517; 
 
5
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Brown (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 345, 678 N.E.2d 513.  Buren 
is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.