[ Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brooks , Slip Opinion No. 202 2

- Ohio

- 3712 .]

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.

S LIP O PINION N O . 202 2

- O HIO - 3712
C LEVELAND M ETROPOLITAN B AR A SSOCIATION v. B ROOKS . [ Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brooks , Slip Opinion No.
202 2

- Ohio

- 3712 .] Attorneys

—

Misconduct

— Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct

— Indefinite suspension. (No. 2022

- 0714

— Submitted August 2, 2022

— Decided October 20 , 20 2 2 .)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2021

- 019

.

_______________________ Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} Respondent, Robert Chester Brooks II, of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0040881, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1988. On November 1, 2019, we suspended Brooks’s license for failing to register as an attorney for the 2019/2020 biennium. In re Attorney Registration of Brooks , 157 Ohio St.3d 1472, 2019

- Ohio

- 4529, 134 N.E.3d 183. On October 14, 2020, weS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 suspended his license again for failing to comply with the continuing

- legal

education (“CLE”) requirements of Gov.Bar R. X. 160 Ohio St.3d 1424, 2020

- Ohio

- 4908, 155 N.E.3d 918. Those suspensions remain in effect. {¶ 2} In July 2021, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, charge d Brooks with violating the Rules of Professional Conduct for, among other things, continuing to practice law after his attorney

- registration and CLE suspensions had been imposed

. Brooks stipulated to the charged misconduct, but the parties could not agre e on a recommended sanction. After a hearing, the Board of Professional Conduct issued a report finding that Brooks had engaged in the stipulated misconduct and recommending that we indefinitely suspend him and impose a condition on his potential reinstat ement to the practice of law. Neither party has objected to the board’s report. {¶ 3} Based on our independent review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and its recommended sanction.
M isconduct {¶ 4} When we imposed Brooks’s attorney

- registrat ion suspension in November 2019, we ordered that he “immediately cease and desist from the practice of law in any form” and we expressly prohibited him from “appear[ing] on behalf of another before any court [or] judge.” 157 Ohio St.3d 1472, 2019

- Ohio

452 9 , 134 N.E.3d 183. Although Brooks received notice of the suspension in
December 2019 , he continued to practice law. In February 2020, he represented a client in a contempt hearing in the Garfield Heights Municipal Court. In July 2020, he appeared as counsel at a hearing in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. In August 2020, he filed a motion in a different case pending in the Cuya hoga County Court of Common Pleas , a nd in the same case he attempted to

appear at a September 2020 hearing , although the judge prohibited Brooks from participating after learning of his suspension

. Brook s told the judge that he hadJanuary Term, 2022

3 already sent in his reg istration fees and fine , but he had not done so

. Brooks failed to notify the other courts that his license was suspended. {¶ 5} As noted above, on October 14, 2020, we imposed Brooks’s CLE suspension. A few days later, relator notified Brooks that it had received a grievance alleging that he had been practicing law while under suspension. Brooks responded to the grievance in November 2020

. D espite his knowledge of both suspension s and relator’s investigation
, Brooks continued to practice law. In
No vember 2020 through March 2021, he appeared on behalf of a client at four hearings in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court

. Brooks failed to notify th at court of his suspension before any of those hearings

. In February 2021, he filed a notice of appearance and a request for discovery in the Garfield Heights Municipal Court, although the following month, he moved to withdraw and advised the court of his suspension. {¶ 6} Relator notified Brooks that it had received tw o more grievance s against him and requested that he respond to each . Brooks, however, failed to do

so

. In May 2021, Brooks spoke on the telephone with relator’s counsel , who asked
Brooks to provide him with a list of all matters in which Brooks had appea red as counsel while under suspension. B rooks failed to provide the list. In July 2021 , relator filed its disciplinary complaint , and Brooks waived his right to a determination of probable cause

. Despite Brooks’s awareness of the complaint
, he
continued to represent a client in a matter pending in the Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas until December 2021, a little over a month before his disciplinary hearing

. {¶ 7} The board concluded that Brooks “showed little regard for the multiple grievances submitted against him, R elator’s investigation, or the pending complaint

. ” The board noted that after relator repeatedly request ed information
about the extent to which Brooks had continued represent ing clients whileS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 suspended , Brooks either failed to pro vide the information or submitted
information that was incomplete or inaccurate. {¶ 8} Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated and the board found that Brooks committed five violations of Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal) , five 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), five violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and one violation each of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) (both requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation ) . In addition, Brooks admitted that
before hi s suspension s , he had not maintain ed professional

- liability insurance and had failed to notify his clients in writing that he did not carry such insurance. The parties therefore stipulated and the board found that he had also violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform a client if the lawyer does not maintain professional

- liability insurance and to obtain a signed acknowledgment of that notice from the client). {¶ 9} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct.
S anction {¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorney violated, the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. {¶ 11} As for aggravating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found
that Brooks had engaged in a pattern of misconduct , committed multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation, and engaged in deceptive practices during the dis ciplinary process. See Gov. Bar R. V(13)(B)(3) through (6).
The board emphasized that Brooks had “failed to display true candor” duringJanuary Term, 2022

5 relator’s investigation and “never completely disclosed the number of matters that he appeared in while under suspensio n

. ” {¶ 12} As for mitigation, the board noted that Brooks had submitted evidence of good character and reputation and that prior to his suspension s , his law practice had served an underrepresented segment of the community. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(5). But those factors , the board noted, did not outweigh the fact that
he had continue d practicing law despite “ full knowledge of this disciplinary proceeding. ” Brooks also testified that he ha d a mental disorder, that he had
communic at ed with the Ohio Lawyer s Assistance Program (“OLAP”), and that he
would benefit from treatment. The board concluded, however, that Brooks had not provided the necessary evidence to substantiate his belief that he suffer ed from a
mental disorder . Brooks therefore failed to establish that he ha d a disorder that qualifies as a mitigating factor under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7)

. {¶ 13} To determine the appropriate sanction, the board reviewed a number of cases involving attorneys who continued practicing law while under a CLE or attorney

- registration suspension and who either failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation or engaged in deceitful conduct

. See, e.g. , Disciplinary Counsel v. Higgins , 117 Ohio St.3d 473, 2008

- Ohio

- 1509, 884 N.E.2d 1070 (indefinitely suspending an attorney for representing a client in a divorce and child

custody case while under a CLE suspensio n and for failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation); Toledo Bar Assn. v. Crandall , 98 Ohio St.3d 444, 2003

- Ohio

- 1637, 786 N.E.2d 872 (indefinitely suspending an attorney for continuing to represent clients in two separate matters while under a CLE suspension and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation); Disciplinary Counsel v. Squeo , 133 Ohio St.3d 536, 2012

- Ohio

- 5004, 979 N.E.2d 321 ( indefinitely suspending an attorney who held himself out as an attorney while under CLE and att orney

registration suspensions, engaged in dishonest conduct , and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation); Disciplinary Counsel v. Mitchell , 124 Ohio St.3dS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 266, 2010

- Ohio

- 135, 921 N.E.2d 634 (indefinitely suspending an attorney for attemptin g to represent a minor in juvenile court while under an attorney

registration suspension and providing false information to the court about his identity and the status of his law license)

. {¶ 14} C onsidering that Brooks continued practicing law

— and therefore
continued to mislead courts

—up until almost a month before his disciplinary hearing, the board concluded that he had showed “a sheer unwillingness to cooperate in the disciplinary process.” The refore, the board concluded that an indefinite suspension was necessary to protect the public “due to [Brooks’s] continued course of conduct to completely disregard his suspension and the disciplinary process.” Additionally , the board agreed with Brooks’s own assessment that he may benefit from counseling and/or other mental

- health

treatment and therefore recommended tha t as a condition of his reinstatement to the practice of law , we require him to provide proof that he has undergone an OLAP
evaluation and complied with any treatment recommendations. {¶ 15} Having considered Brooks’s misconduct, the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and our applicable precedent, we agree with the board’s
recommended sanction. “We have routinely imposed indefinite suspe nsions on attorneys who have continued to practice law while under suspension for CLE and registration violations and who have then failed to respond to the ensuing disciplinary investigation.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Eisler , 143 Ohio St.3d 51,
2015

- Ohio

- 967, 34 N.E.3d 99, ¶ 17. In light of our precedent, a n indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case.
C onclusion {¶ 16} Robert Chester Brooks II is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. In addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(25), Brooks’s reinstatement shall be condition ed on submission of proof that he hasJanuary Term, 2022

7 undergone an OLAP evaluation and complied with any resulting recommendations for counseling and/or other mental

- health treatment . Costs are ta xed to Brooks.
J udgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and B RUNNER , JJ ., concur.

_________________ Christopher Joseph Klasa , Bar Counsel, and Stephanie R. Anderson , Deputy Bar Counsel, for relator. Robert Chester Brooks II, pro se

.

_________________