[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Britt, 133 Ohio St.3d 217, 2012-Ohio-4541.] 

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. BRITT. 

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Britt, 133 Ohio St.3d 217, 2012-Ohio-4541.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to provide competent representation—Failure to 

act with reasonable diligence in representing client—Charging an 

excessive fee—Failure to properly supervise staff—Failure to hold fees in 

trust account until earned—Indefinite suspension. 

(No. 2011-2043—Submitted March 21, 2012—Decided October 3, 2012.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-048. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Curtis D. Britt of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney Registration 

No. 0070966, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1999. In March 

2007, he was also admitted to the bar in Kentucky. Although his Kentucky 

license was suspended from December 2008 to November 2009 for nonpayment 

of his bar dues, that license is now in good standing.1

 

{¶ 2} In June 2010, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged Britt 

with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his 

handling of a client’s bankruptcy matter. In a second amended complaint, relator 

further alleged that Britt had collected retainers and filing fees from more than 40 

clients, converted those funds, and failed to perform the promised services and 

that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) had obtained levies against him for 

past-due employee tax withholdings. 

 

1. It appears, however, that Britt has a nonpractice exemption for which he has voluntarily agreed 

not to practice law in Kentucky until the exemption is removed by the Continuing Legal Education 

Commission upon certification of completion of appropriate continuing-legal-education credit 

hours. See http://www.kybar.org/26 (accessed Aug. 23, 2012). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

{¶ 3} The parties stipulated that Britt neglected numerous client matters; 

failed to reasonably communicate with his clients; failed to preserve the identity 

of client funds and property; and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit, or misrepresentation and conduct that was prejudicial to the administration 

of justice by converting those funds to his own use and that his conduct adversely 

reflects on his fitness to practice law. 

{¶ 4} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline adopted the parties’ stipulations of fact and misconduct. After a 

hearing, where the panel heard Britt’s testimony and received exhibits, the panel 

recommended that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio 

and ordered to make full restitution to those clients affected by his misconduct. 

The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety. 

{¶ 5} Relator objects to the board’s recommended sanction, arguing that 

Britt’s conduct warrants permanent disbarment. For the reasons that follow, we 

overrule relator’s objection, adopt the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

and recommended sanction with the additional requirements that Britt complete 

12 hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) in law-office and trust-account 

management and that he serve one year of monitored probation upon his 

reinstatement to the practice of law in Ohio. 

Misconduct 

Count One

{¶ 6} With respect to Count One, the parties stipulated and the board 

found that Sonya Weaver met Britt through Total Bankruptcy, a website that 

provided bankruptcy client referrals for a fee. At her first appointment, Weaver 

met Britt’s employee, Kenneth Cooper, who, although he was not an attorney, 

told her that she would qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy notwithstanding her 

ownership interest in three time-share properties. Cooper also advised her to stop 

paying her credit-card bills and quit her part-time job, which she did. 
January Term, 2012 

3

{¶ 7} At that February 6, 2009 appointment, Weaver signed a fee 

agreement that required her to pay a $1,000 flat fee plus filing fees, and within 

several weeks she wrote two checks to Britt for a total of $1,424. By early 

March, she had returned her completed paperwork and bank records to Britt’s 

office and completed an online credit-counseling course. At her first meeting 

with Britt in April 2009, he informed her that Chapter 7 bankruptcy might not be 

a viable option, given her ownership interest in certain property, including the 

time-share properties she had disclosed to Cooper, but that he needed additional 

information to make a final determination. 

{¶ 8} At a brief meeting several days later, Britt reviewed Weaver’s 

documents and confirmed that Chapter 7 bankruptcy was not a viable option. 

When Weaver expressed dissatisfaction because she had relied on Cooper’s 

flawed advice and was two months behind in her credit-card payments, Britt 

suggested that she contact her creditors to set up a payment plan. 

{¶ 9} On April 30, 2009, Weaver sent Britt a certified letter terminating 

his representation and requesting the return of her file, an itemized statement of 

the legal services rendered, and the return of any unearned fees. Approximately 

one month later, Britt sent her a $499 check—$299 for the filing fee and $200 for 

unearned legal fees—but he failed to provide an itemized statement of the 

services provided and failed to return her file. He had not kept any 

contemporaneous time records in Weaver’s case, but in responding to relator’s 

inquiries, he maintained that he had earned $925 for two hours of direct 

consultation with Weaver and one hour of file review, billed at $225 per hour, 

$150 for administrative work performed by his assistant, and a $50 

reimbursement for Weaver’s credit-counseling course. Weaver, however, 

disputed that she had spent two hours with Britt. She has retained new counsel to 

assist her with her bankruptcy filing. 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

Count Two

{¶ 10} With regard to Count Two, the parties stipulated and the board 

found that in May 2010, Britt agreed to represent Craig Smith in a Chapter 7 

bankruptcy. Smith paid a retainer of $800 and gave Britt $299 for the filing fee, 

and Britt deposited the money into his operating account. Britt did not promptly 

file the bankruptcy petition and did not respond to Smith’s inquiries. He 

stipulated that the delay in filing was due, in part, to the fact that he had spent the 

filing fee on unrelated matters. He did eventually file the petition, but only after 

he received and misapplied other client funds to pay the filing fee. 

Count Three

{¶ 11} Neil Frazier retained Britt in October 2009 to represent him in the 

dissolution of his marriage. He gave Britt an $800 retainer and $250 for the filing 

fee, which Britt deposited in his operating account. Frazier terminated Britt’s 

representation in October 2010 based upon his lack of communication and his 

failure to file the petition for dissolution. Britt failed to refund Frazier’s money 

because he had spent it on other matters. 

Count Four 

{¶ 12} During relator’s investigation of the Smith grievance, Britt 

admitted that he had a client trust account but that he regularly deposited client 

money, whether earned or unearned, into his operating account. During his 

September 28, 2010 deposition, he admitted that he had accepted employment, 

retainers, and filing fees from 24 to 30 additional bankruptcy clients. He further 

acknowledged that he had spent their money on other matters and had failed to 

file their bankruptcy petitions. Although relator asked Britt to provide names and 

contact information for these clients by October 8, 2010, he did not comply with 

the request until approximately November 4, 2010—after he had retained counsel. 

{¶ 13} The documents Britt provided to relator demonstrated that he had 

accepted over $40,000 in retainers and filing fees from 41 clients, in addition to 
January Term, 2012 

5

the clients discussed in Counts One through Three, and deposited all of the money 

into his operating account. Britt used those funds, in part, for his own purposes 

without any regard to whether he had earned them. He did not take any action to 

notify the affected clients of his misconduct until after relator initiated its 

investigation. At the time of the panel hearing, Britt had not made restitution to 

any of the affected clients, though he had been paying $1,000 per month ($9,350 

in all) to local bankruptcy attorney Nick Zingarelli, who had assumed the 

representation of some of the affected clients. 

{¶ 14} The parties further stipulated and the board found that as a result of 

Britt’s failure to withhold federal income taxes or pay unemployment taxes, the 

IRS had filed two levies, totaling more than $16,000, against him in the 

bankruptcy court. Consequently, the bankruptcy trustee has remitted fees earned 

by Britt to the IRS. 

Violations

{¶ 15} The parties stipulated and the board found that Britt violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a 

client) by failing to provide Weaver with competent representation as a result of 

his flawed office intake and review process and violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 

(prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an 

illegal or clearly excessive fee) and 7.1 (prohibiting a lawyer from making or 

using false, misleading, or nonverifiable communication about the lawyer or the 

lawyer’s services) by failing to provide Weaver the free initial consultation that 

the Total Bankruptcy website had promised. The parties also stipulated and the 

board found that Britt aided in the unauthorized practice of law by failing to 

properly supervise Cooper, in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 5.3(b) (requiring a lawyer 

to make reasonable efforts to ensure that a nonlawyer employee’s conduct is 

compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer) and 5.5(a) (prohibiting 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

a lawyer from assisting another to practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the 

regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction). 

{¶ 16} With respect to the remaining counts, the parties stipulated and the 

board found that Brit failed to provide diligent, prompt, and competent 

representation to his clients in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3 (requiring a 

lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client) and 1.4 (requiring 

a lawyer to reasonably communicate with a client), that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 

1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients in an interest-bearing client 

trust account, separate from the lawyer’s own property) and (c) (requiring a 

lawyer to deposit into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been 

paid in advance) by failing to properly segregate client funds in a client trust 

account, that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 

in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and (d) 

(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 

administration of justice) by converting client funds, and that the sum of his 

conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, in violation 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). 

{¶ 17} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 

Sanction 

{¶ 18} Noting that taking retainers from clients and failing to perform the 

promised work is tantamount to theft, relator argued that the appropriate sanction 

for Britt’s conduct is disbarment. Britt, in contrast, requested that the board 

recommend a two-year suspension, with reinstatement conditioned upon his 

making full restitution to the affected clients. 

{¶ 19} The board found that Britt should be indefinitely suspended from 

the practice of law in Ohio and ordered to pay full restitution to the clients 

affected by his misconduct. Relator objects to the board’s recommendation and 
January Term, 2012 

7

argues that permanent disbarment is the only appropriate sanction for the 

misconduct at issue in this case. 

{¶ 20} 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. Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 

473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 

{¶ 21} Here, in addition to Britt’s treating his flat fees as earned upon 

receipt, depositing them with his client’s fee deposits into his operating account, 

and spending the money without performing the promised work, he has also aided 

in the unauthorized practice of law by failing to adequately supervise Cooper, and 

charged a clearly excessive fee. 

{¶ 22} We have held that disbarment is the presumptive sanction for 

misappropriation, but we have recognized that this sanction may be tempered with 

sufficient evidence of mitigating or extenuating circumstances. See, e.g., Dayton 

Bar Assn. v. Gerren, 103 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-4110, 812 N.E.2d 1280, ¶ 14, 

citing Disciplinary Counsel v. France, 97 Ohio St.3d 240, 2002-Ohio-5945, 778 

N.E.2d 573, ¶ 11 (presumptive disciplinary measure for acts of misappropriation 

is disbarment); Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 101 Ohio St.3d 27, 2003-Ohio6623, 800 N.E.2d 1129, ¶ 9 (lesser sanction of indefinite suspension based on the 

mitigating evidence that respondent had been licensed to practice for 

approximately 45 years without any previous ethical infraction); Disciplinary 

Counsel v. Garrity, 98 Ohio St.3d 317, 2003-Ohio-740, 784 N.E.2d 691 

(indefinitely suspending a lawyer and former pharmacist convicted of stealing 

prescription drugs for his own use where mitigating factors included the lawyer’s 

drug addiction, demonstrated commitment to sobriety, cooperation in the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

investigations leading to and arising out of his drug-related convictions, and the 

absence of harm to his legal clients). 

{¶ 23} Relator argues that Britt has failed to present sufficient mitigating 

evidence to overcome the presumptive sanction of disbarment. Specifically, 

relator argues that this court has deviated from the presumptive sanction in cases 

involving only a handful of clients and significant mitigation such as a mental 

illness or addiction or in cases where the respondent has practiced for many years 

without misconduct—factors that are not present in this case. See, e.g., 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Squire, 130 Ohio St.3d 368, 2011-Ohio-5578, 958 N.E.2d 

914, ¶ 65-66, 70 (indefinitely suspending an attorney who failed to hold client 

funds separate from his own property, misappropriated client funds for his own 

benefit, failed to maintain detailed records of the money held and disbursed on 

behalf of his clients, failed to maintain or produce documentation to support 

claimed client-related expenditures, borrowed money from clients without 

disclosing the inherent conflicts of such arrangements or advising his clients to 

seek independent counsel, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 

or misrepresentation, and knowingly made false statements of material fact during 

the ensuing disciplinary proceeding when mitigating factors included practice of 

more than 25 years without disciplinary action), citing Akron Bar Assn. v. 

Smithern, 125 Ohio St.3d 72, 2010-Ohio-652, 926 N.E.2d 274 (indefinitely 

suspending an attorney for converting client funds on more than 30 separate 

occasions and for depositing more than $100,000 in client retainers in her 

personal bank account rather than in her firm’s trust account when mitigating 

factors included more than 20 years of practice without disciplinary violations, 

cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, an agreement to make full restitution, 

and gambling and alcohol addictions that were causally related to the attorney’s 

misconduct); and Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Harris, 96 Ohio St.3d 138, 2002-Ohio2988, 772 N.E.2d 621 (indefinitely suspending an attorney who converted more 
January Term, 2012 

9

than $29,000 in client funds when mitigating factors included the attorney’s status 

as a military veteran, his 27 years of practice without incident, and letters and 

testimony from his pastor and several professional acquaintances, including 

current and former judges, attesting to his dedication and trustworthiness). 

{¶ 24} As aggravating factors in this case, we find that Britt has engaged 

in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B)(1)(c) and (d). The parties also stipulated that the vulnerability of and harm 

to Britt’s clients, who had limited resources and whose bankruptcy filings were 

delayed, sometimes indefinitely, by Britt’s neglect and conversion of their fees, 

are an aggravating factor. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h). And although Britt 

has retained attorney Nick Zingarelli to assist some clients affected by his 

misconduct and paid him more than $9,000 for that work, at the time of the panel 

hearing, there were other clients to whom Britt had made no restitution. See

BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(i). 

{¶ 25} Relator argues that Britt acted with a dishonest or selfish motive 

because he deposited his clients’ funds into his operating account and then used 

them to pay his professional and personal obligations. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B)(1)(b). 

{¶ 26} At the panel hearing, Britt testified that he spent 20 years in the Air 

Force working in the areas of federal acquisitions and contract management and 

that upon his honorable discharge from the service in 1996, he chose to attend law 

school. Upon graduating from the University of Cincinnati College of Law in 

1999, he worked as a foreclosure attorney for two law firms and then became a 

staff attorney for a title company. He was laid off by the title company in October 

2007 and shared office space with a friend for approximately six months before 

an Indianapolis law firm opened an office in the Cincinnati suburb of Blue Ash 

and hired him to handle consumer bankruptcy matters for clients obtained through 

an Internet-based referral service. Britt was the only employee at the Blue Ash 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10

location and had no experience in bankruptcy law. He quit after two of his first 

three paychecks bounced. 

{¶ 27} After leaving the firm, Britt took the suggestion of Ken Cooper, 

the Indianapolis firm’s business and marketing manager, and opened his own 

bankruptcy firm, using the same Internet referral service to obtain clients. He 

maintained an office in Blue Ash from July 2008 through July 2009, an office in 

the Cincinnati suburb of Kenwood from October 2008 to November 2009, an 

office in Cincinnati from February 2009 through January 2010, and an office in 

Florence, Kentucky, from October 2008 through September 2010. His conduct in 

this case does not appear to have been dishonest or selfish. It was born of his 

inexperience and lack of guidance as he commenced and rapidly expanded his 

solo practice. 

{¶ 28} As the board found, and relator now argues, Britt has failed to 

demonstrate that his diagnosis of depression is a mitigating factor pursuant to 

BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g) because his evaluating psychiatrist opined that his 

condition “was not severe enough to substantially impair his ability to practice 

law.” (Emphasis sic.) Nonetheless, we find that sufficient mitigating factors are 

present to warrant an indefinite suspension rather than a permanent disbarment in 

this case. 

{¶ 29} First, Britt has no prior disciplinary record. BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B)(2)(a). Britt also made a full and free disclosure to the board and displayed 

a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d). He 

responded to relator’s letters of inquiry and agreed to be deposed on two separate 

occasions. He admitted the misconduct alleged in the initial grievances against 

him. And when questioned during his second deposition about his handling of 

client funds, he admitted that he routinely deposited client payments, including 

filing-fee deposits, directly into his operating account. At that time, Britt 

estimated that he had 25 to 30 clients whose bankruptcy petitions had not been 
January Term, 2012 

11

filed because he no longer had the money to pay the filing fees. This disclosure 

resulted in additional charges levied against Britt in relator’s second amended 

complaint. 

{¶ 30} Not only was Britt candid with relator, he also openly 

acknowledged his own misconduct to the affected clients. In letters to each of 

them, Britt set out the amount of the payments he had received and advised them: 

These monies should have been deposited into my attorney trust 

account and held there until earned. I did not deposit them into my 

trust account but instead deposited them into my operating 

account. Additionally, I have not instituted your bankruptcy 

proceeding and so no fees were earned by me. In plain English, I 

spent the money you paid me before it was earned. My failure to 

properly hold your money in trust until earned and my failure to 

prosecute your bankruptcy are both serious ethical violations to 

which I have admitted. I am currently being prosecuted by the 

Cincinnati Bar Association in an action pending before the Board 

of Commissioners on Grievance[s] and Discipline. 

{¶ 31} Britt advised his clients that he had made arrangements with 

attorney Zingarelli to complete their representation, if they so chose, and 

explained that once his disciplinary action was resolved, his clients could file 

claims with the Client Security Fund. He also apologized to his clients, stating: 

I know that I have violated your trust and put you in jeopardy by 

not timely performing the services I promised to perform. I have 

been suffering from depression and have only recently begun to 

receive treatment. I say this as an explanation and not an excuse. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12

As you may know, I served in the Air Force for 20 years and was 

honorably discharged. I have a family and have always prided 

myself on being an honest, contributing member of our 

community. I have dishonored myself and my profession and have 

let you down. I cannot adequately convey how sorry I am for my 

actions. 

 

{¶ 32} Britt offered a sincere apology to the members of the panel and 

expressed his desire to return to the practice of law at some point in the future so 

that he could provide pro bono services for a nonprofit organization in an effort to 

fulfill his obligations to the public and to restore his honor and integrity. He has 

also submitted letters from four former clients and one colleague attesting to his 

competency, integrity, and professionalism. The writers do not state that they are 

aware of the pending disciplinary action against Britt, but at a minimum, their 

letters offer some indication that Britt can be rehabilitated. 

{¶ 33} Based on the foregoing, and in light of the sincerity with which 

Britt has expressed both his remorse and his desire to make amends for his 

misconduct, we believe that he may one day be able resume the competent, 

ethical, and professional practice of law. Therefore, we overrule relator’s 

objections and adopt the board’s recommended sanction of an indefinite 

suspension coupled with an order of restitution. Recognizing, however, that 

Britt’s inexperience and lack of guidance contributed significantly to his 

misconduct, we supplement the board’s recommended sanction with the 

additional requirements that Britt complete 12 hours of CLE in law-office and 

trust-account management before seeking reinstatement and serve a one-year 

period of monitored probation upon reinstatement to the practice of law in Ohio. 

{¶ 34} Accordingly, Curtis D. Britt is indefinitely suspended from the 

practice of law in Ohio and ordered to provide to relator, within 30 days of this 
January Term, 2012 

13

opinion, documentation of all funds received from Sonya Weaver, Craig Smith, 

Neil Frazier, and each of the clients identified in Exhibits D, K, L, and M of Joint 

Exhibit 1 and make restitution to those clients (or their designated payees) in the 

aggregate amount of $2,000 per month until he has made full restitution. Britt is 

further ordered to provide a monthly accounting to relator of all restitution 

payments made pursuant to this order, commencing with 30 days of this opinion. 

Any future reinstatement shall be conditioned on proof that Britt has fully 

complied with this restitution order and completed 12 hours of CLE in law-office 

and trust-account management in addition to the general requirements of Gov.Bar 

R. X. Furthermore, upon reinstatement to the practice of law in Ohio, Britt is 

ordered to serve one year of monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. 

V(9). Costs are taxed to Britt. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Dimity V. Orlet, Assistant Bar Counsel; Crabbe, Brown & James, L.L.P., 

and Robert J. Gehring; and Phillip J. Smith, for relator. 

Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson, L.P.A., George D. Jonson, and Brian M. 

Spiess, for respondent. 

______________________