Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bauer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bauer, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-3653.] 
 
 
 
 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. 2015-OHIO-3653 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BAUER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bauer, Slip Opinion No.  
2015-Ohio-3653.] 
Attorney misconduct, including attempting to resolve a fee dispute with another 
lawyer through the court system rather than through mediation or 
arbitration by a bar association—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2015-0282—Submitted April 14, 2015—Decided September 10, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2014-056. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Roger Richard Bauer of Warren, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0015998, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1973. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} On July 7, 2014, a probable-cause panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline1 certified to the board a single-
count complaint filed against Bauer by relator, Mahoning County Bar 
Association.  In that complaint, relator alleged that Bauer had committed multiple 
ethical violations in attempting to collect fees from the settlement of a personal-
injury case that he had referred to another lawyer. 
{¶ 3} The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors and agreed that a one-year suspension, all 
stayed on conditions, is the appropriate sanction for Bauer’s violation of three 
rules governing the ethical conduct of lawyers in Ohio.  The parties agreed that 
six additional allegations of rule violations should be dismissed. 
{¶ 4} The panel granted the parties’ joint motion to waive the hearing and 
adopted their agreed stipulations.  However, it rejected their agreed sanction and 
recommended that Bauer be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct.  The board 
adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the 
panel.  We adopt those findings and publicly reprimand Bauer for his misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} Sometime in 2000, a friend contacted Bauer to ask him whether he 
knew any attorneys who handled medical-malpractice cases.  According to Bauer, 
after this discussion, he met with his friend’s sister, who was concerned that her 
daughter, who was less than a year old, had brain damage caused by medical 
negligence during her birth.  Bauer recommended that the mother meet with 
another attorney, who eventually entered into a written contingent-fee agreement 
with the parents and, in 2010, obtained a substantial jury verdict in their favor. 
{¶ 6} Although Bauer had not entered into a written fee agreement with 
the child’s parents, he filed suit against the attorney who represented them in the 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
malpractice action, claiming that he was entitled to share in the attorney fees 
earned in their case.  The court dismissed the case, and the matter was ultimately 
arbitrated by the Ohio State Bar Association, which ruled against Bauer. 
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated and the board found that Bauer’s conduct 
violated DR 2-107(A)(2) (requiring a lawyer to disclose in writing to the client 
the terms of any division of fees between lawyers who are not in the same firm 
and the identity of all lawyers sharing in the fees), Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(c) (requiring 
an attorney to set forth a contingent-fee agreement in a writing signed by the 
client), 1.5(e) (permitting attorneys who are not in the same firm to divide fees 
only if the fee division is reasonable and proportional to the work performed, the 
client consents to the arrangement in writing after full disclosure, and a written 
closing statement is prepared and signed by the client and each lawyer), and 1.5(f) 
(requiring fee disputes regarding the division of fees between lawyers to be 
resolved through mediation or arbitration by a local bar association or the Ohio 
State Bar Association).2  They also recommend that the remaining charges 
alleging rule violations be dismissed.  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and 
misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties the lawyer violated and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 
                                                 
2 Relator charged Bauer with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before and after 
February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which supersede the 
Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  When both the former and current 
rules are cited for the same acts, the allegations comprise a single continuing ethical violation.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1. 
   
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  We also weigh evidence of the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13). 
{¶ 9} The parties stipulated and the board found that no aggravating 
factors are present.  As mitigating factors, they determined that Bauer does not 
have a prior disciplinary record, has made full and free disclosure and 
demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, has 
presented evidence of his good character and reputation apart from the charged 
misconduct, and acknowledged the wrongfulness of his actions.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(1), (4), and (5). 
{¶ 10} The parties jointly recommended that Bauer be suspended for one 
year, all stayed on conditions.  The board considered the sanctions imposed in 
three cases involving similar violations: Cleveland Metro. Bar v. Schiff, 139 Ohio 
St.3d 456, 2014-Ohio-2573, 12 N.E.3d 1207 (imposing a two-year suspension, all 
stayed, for the attorney’s failure to obtain consent from numerous clients to refer 
their matters to outside counsel and to split fees with those attorneys, neglect of a 
client matter, and failure to reasonably communicate with a client);  Columbus 
Bar Assn. v. Adusei, 136 Ohio St.3d 155, 2013-Ohio-3125, 991 N.E.2d 1142 
(publicly reprimanding an attorney who failed to reduce a contingent-fee 
agreement to writing signed by the client and charging an illegal or clearly 
excessive fee); and Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Seibel, 132 Ohio St.3d 411, 2012-
Ohio-3234, 972 N.E.2d 594 (rejecting the parties’ stipulated sanction of a stayed 
six-month suspension in favor of publicly reprimanding an attorney who failed to 
reduce a contingent-fee agreement to a writing signed by the client, charged a 
nonrefundable fee without making required disclosures about that fee, failed to 
hold client funds in an interest-bearing client trust account separate from his own 
funds, and failed to promptly deliver funds or other property that the client was 
entitled to receive). 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
{¶ 11} The board acknowledged that the parties’ recommended sanction 
of a stayed one-year suspension fell within the range of sanctions imposed in 
Schiff, Adusei, and Seibel.  But the board distinguished Schiff on the ground that it 
involved a pattern of misconduct consisting of multiple offenses and harm to 
multiple vulnerable clients—aggravating factors that are not present here.  See 
Schiff at ¶ 13.  Because we have recognized that a public reprimand is often the 
appropriate sanction when violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 are accompanied by 
significant mitigating evidence and the corresponding absence of significant 
aggravating factors, see Adusei at ¶ 18-21, the board recommends that we publicly 
reprimand Bauer for his misconduct. 
{¶ 12} We adopt the board’s analysis and agree that a public reprimand is 
the appropriate sanction in this case. 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, Roger Richard Bauer is publicly reprimanded for his 
misconduct.  Costs are taxed to Bauer. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Ronald E. Slipski, Bar Counsel, and David C. Comstock Jr., Bar Counsel, 
for relator. 
Michael D. Rossi, for respondent. 
_________________