Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Freeman

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Freeman, 95 Ohio St.3d 117, 2002-Ohio-1944.] 
 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. FREEMAN. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Freeman (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 117.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter — Handling legal matter without adequate preparation. 
(No. 01-2205 — Submitted January 30, 2002 — Decided April 24, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-12. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a two-count 
complaint on February 5, 2001, charging respondent, Kenneth J. Freeman of 
Solon, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0018940, with several violations of the 
Disciplinary Rules.  Respondent filed an answer on February 28, 2001, and the 
parties stipulated findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended a 
sanction to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court. 
Count I 
 
In Count I, respondent agreed to represent Dr. Geraldine M. Glover in a 
Chapter 7 bankruptcy action and in an adversary proceeding to determine the 
dischargeability of Glover’s student loan.  Respondent filed a Chapter 7 
bankruptcy petition for Glover on November 2, 1998, and the court discharged 
Glover’s debts on April 1, 1999, exempting, however, her student loan.  A recent 
change in the bankruptcy law required a finding of hardship to grant relief from 
government-guaranteed student loans.  Respondent thus elected to await the 
outcome of three hardship cases pending before the same bankruptcy judge that 
Glover had drawn before filing an action for Glover. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Approximately one year later, respondent decided, after reviewing rulings 
in those cases, that Glover was not likely to prevail in an adversary proceeding 
seeking relief based on hardship.  Consequently, respondent did not file an 
adversary proceeding for Glover.  Respondent, however, failed to adequately and 
timely notify Glover of his conclusion until Glover filed a grievance against him 
on December 28, 1999. 
 
In mitigation as to this count, respondent began suffering from diabetes at 
about this time, a previously undiagnosed condition until his hospitalization for it 
in November 1999.  Furthermore, Glover may reopen her bankruptcy case and file 
an adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability of her student loan.  
Finally, Glover sued respondent for malpractice, and the parties have settled that 
case and dismissed it. 
Count II 
 
Under Count II, Freddie Young hired respondent to file a Chapter 13 
bankruptcy for him and his wife, Pamela L. Young.  Mr. Young paid respondent a 
fee of $1,400.  The Youngs also discussed filing an adversary proceeding against 
Mr. Young’s mortgage holder concerning a longstanding dispute over insurance 
proceeds.  Respondent and the Youngs verbally agreed that respondent would 
collect an additional fee at the conclusion of the adversary proceeding. 
 
Consequently, respondent filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition for the 
Youngs and, later, an adversary proceeding.  During respondent’s representation 
of the Youngs, respondent concluded that he could not support the claims set forth 
in the adversary complaint with sufficient evidence, despite the Youngs’ 
insistence that they had valid claims against the mortgage holder. 
 
Nevertheless, respondent failed to adequately and fully communicate with 
the Youngs in a timely or effective manner.  Respondent failed to inform Mr. 
Young adequately that the court would dismiss his adversary proceeding if he was 
January Term, 2002 
3 
unable to produce additional documentation.  Moreover, after the court dismissed 
the proceeding, respondent failed to timely notify Mr. Young about the dismissal. 
 
In mitigation as to this count, relator agrees that respondent did not have 
sufficient evidence to support the claims set forth in the adversary complaint.  
Relator does not question respondent’s judgment on how to proceed in his initial 
representation of Mr. Young in the adversary proceeding, especially given Mr. 
Young’s hesitance toward previous settlement attempts.  Moreover, the Youngs 
did not pay respondent for the adversary proceeding, and respondent has agreed to 
waive the defense of the statute of limitations should Mr. Young sue him for 
malpractice relative to the dismissal of the adversary proceeding. 
 
Respondent initially failed to cooperate with relator’s investigator.  Before 
relator filed the instant complaint, though, respondent began to cooperate fully 
with relator; he presented a detailed review of his representation of the Youngs in 
a lengthy letter to relator. 
 
Relator and respondent stipulated that respondent violated DR 6-
101(A)(3) (neglecting legal matter entrusted to lawyer) in representing Glover and 
6-101(A)(2) (handling legal matter without adequate preparation) in representing 
the Youngs.  Relator and respondent also stipulate that respondent violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) in initially failing to cooperate fully in the investigation of 
the Youngs’ grievance. 
 
The parties jointly recommended that we publicly reprimand respondent 
for his admitted violations of the Disciplinary Rules. 
 
A panel of the board adopted the stipulated findings of fact and 
conclusions of law and agreed to recommend the stipulated sentence of a public 
reprimand.  The board adopted the panel’s findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
After reviewing the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Accordingly, we hereby publicly reprimand 
respondent and tax costs to him. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Edward L. Bettendorf and John J. Duffy, for relator. 
 
Gerald R. Walton, for respondent. 
__________________