Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2344.] 
 
 
 
 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-2344 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. BROWN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown, Slip Opinion  
No. 2015-Ohio-2344.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation and 
practicing law while under suspension—Permanent disbarment. 
(No. 2013-1885—Submitted January 14, 2015—Decided June 17, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-049. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Shawn Javon Brown of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0079331, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2005.  In 
November 2009, we suspended Brown for his failure to register for the 2009/2011 
biennium.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Brown, 123 Ohio St.3d 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256.  On October 13, 2011, we indefinitely 
suspended him from the practice of law based on his neglect of three separate 
client matters, his failure to reasonably communicate with those clients, his failure 
to promptly deliver funds that those clients were entitled to receive, and his 
conduct involving in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.  Cleveland 
Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown, 130 Ohio St.3d 147, 2011-Ohio-5198, 956 N.E.2d 
296.  And on January 8, 2014, we imposed an interim default suspension pursuant 
to Gov.Bar R. V(6a)(B)(1) for his failure to answer an eight-count complaint 
alleging that he continued to practice law while his license was under suspension 
and then failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  Cleveland 
Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown, 138 Ohio St.3d 1219, 2014-Ohio-14, 3 N.E.3d 1203. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, timely moved this 
court to remand the case to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline1 in order to pursue Brown’s permanent disbarment, and we granted the 
motion in June 2014.  See Gov.Bar R. V(6a)(D).  Relator then moved for default, 
and the matter was referred to a master commissioner for disposition.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(6a)(F). 
{¶ 3} The master commissioner found that relator had proved many of the 
charged violations by clear and convincing evidence but recommended that 13 
alleged violations be dismissed based on the insufficiency of relator’s sworn 
evidence.  Based upon findings that Brown had continued to practice law while 
his license was under suspension and had shown a complete disregard of the 
disciplinary process, the master commissioner recommended that Brown be 
permanently disbarred.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of 
                                                 
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
fact and misconduct and agreed that permanent disbarment is the appropriate 
sanction in this case. 
{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and 
permanently disbar Brown from the practice of law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
Counts I through IV and VI through VII—Practicing While Under Suspension 
{¶ 5} From January through August 2012, Brown continued to practice 
law while his law license was indefinitely suspended.  He filed notices of 
appearance and various motions in four cases pending in various common pleas 
and municipal courts in northern Ohio and actually appeared before the courts to 
represent clients in four cases.  One of the clients had paid Brown $200 toward a 
negotiated flat fee of $800 to defend her in her pending OVI case. 
{¶ 6} On these facts, the board found that Brown had committed six 
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a 
jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that 
jurisdiction), six violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), six 
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and a single 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from making an 
agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee). 
{¶ 7} Finding that relator’s evidence was insufficient to prove that Brown 
had committed additional charged violations, the board recommended that we 
dismiss three alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, three alleged violations of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a), and six alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) set forth in 
these counts. 
{¶ 8} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct with respect to 
these counts, and, consistent with the board’s recommendation, we hereby dismiss 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
three alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, three alleged violations of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a), and six alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) as 
recommended by the board. 
Count V—Neglect of Client Matter and Clearly Excessive Fee 
{¶ 9} Deborah A. Broski met with Brown and paid him a $550 retainer to 
transfer her late mother’s interest in real estate to her father.  Brown promised to 
complete the work within 30 days.  Broski contacted Brown after 30 days had 
elapsed, and he advised her that he had the new deed and would deliver it to her.  
After Brown failed to deliver the deed as promised, Broski searched the Internet 
and discovered that his license had been suspended.  Brown has done nothing to 
effectuate the transfer of the real property and has failed to refund Broski’s fee. 
{¶ 10} The board found that Brown’s conduct in this matter violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.5(a), 5.5(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h), but recommends that we 
dismiss an alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c).  We adopt the board’s 
findings of fact, accept the board’s recommendation as to the violations of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.5(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h), and dismiss the alleged violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c). 
Count VIII—Failure to Cooperate 
{¶ 11} During the investigation of the grievances against Brown, relator 
made at least 14 attempts to contact Brown in person, by mail, and by telephone.  
At least one letter sent by certified mail was signed for, and several letters sent by 
ordinary mail were not returned by the postal service.  On October 6, 2012, 
Brown was personally served with a package from relator that contained copies of 
all of the grievances and correspondence from relator that requested his written 
response to the allegations.  He did not respond to relator’s inquiry. 
{¶ 12} On these facts, the board found that Brown violated Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation) and 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a 
demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation).  We 
adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.2 
{¶ 14} As aggravating factors, the board found that Brown has been 
previously disciplined by this court, has engaged in a pattern of misconduct 
involving multiple offenses, has failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, 
and has caused harm to vulnerable victims.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), 
(c), (d), (e), and (h).  No mitigating factors appear. 
{¶ 15} The board found that Brown continued to practice law on 
numerous occasions after his license had been suspended and that he totally 
disregarded his obligations under Ohio’s attorney-disciplinary system.  Noting 
that our precedent provides that disbarment is the presumptive sanction for an 
attorney who continues to practice law while under suspension, the board 
recommends that we permanently disbar Brown.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Fletcher, 135 Ohio St.3d 404, 2013-Ohio-1510, 987 N.E.2d 678, ¶ 10. 
                                                 
2 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
{¶ 16} We agree that Brown’s continued practice of law, despite his 
indefinite suspension from the practice, and his failure to cooperate in the ensuing 
disciplinary investigation warrant permanent disbarment. 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, we permanently disbar Shawn Javon Brown from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Brown. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Andrew C. Geronimo, K. Ann Zimmerman, and Heather M. Zirke, for 
relator. 
_________________________