[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Thomas, 125 Ohio St.3d 24, 2010-Ohio-1031.] 

CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. THOMAS. 

[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Thomas, 

 125 Ohio St.3d 24, 2010-Ohio-1031.] 

Attorney misconduct, including failing to act with reasonable diligence and to 

keep client informed about the status of a legal matter and knowingly 

making or failing to correct a false statement of fact to a tribunal — Sixmonth suspension stayed on conditions.

(No. 2009-1961 ⎯ Submitted December 16, 2009 ⎯ Decided March 24, 2010.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-007. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Sam Thomas III of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0067848, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997. 

{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 

recommends suspending respondent from the practice of law for a period of six 

months, with the suspension conditionally stayed. The recommendation derives 

from respondent’s conduct in a client’s bankruptcy case and his conduct in a 

second client’s personal-injury case. We accept the board’s findings and 

conclusions that respondent committed the charged professional misconduct, and 

we adopt the recommended sanction. 

{¶ 3} Relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, charged 

respondent with violating Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) (knowingly making, or failing to 

correct, a false statement of fact to a tribunal) for conduct while representing his 

client in the bankruptcy. In regard to the personal-injury case, relator charged 

respondent with violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

diligence and promptness in representing a client), Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(1) (failure 

to promptly inform the client of a decision or circumstance when the client’s 

informed consent is required), and Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (failure to keep the 

client reasonably informed about the status of a legal matter). 

{¶ 4} A panel of board members heard the case and issued findings of 

fact and conclusions of law. The panel found clear and convincing evidence that 

respondent violated the rules as charged. The panel recommended that 

respondent be suspended for six months, all stayed provided he commit no further 

misconduct during the suspension period and provide restitution to his bankruptcy 

client in the amount of $126. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations of the panel. 

{¶ 5} The parties do not object to the board report. 

Misconduct 

The Bankruptcy Cases 

{¶ 6} Respondent was hired to represent a client in a Chapter 13 

bankruptcy. When respondent filed the bankruptcy petition, he did not file a 

rights-and-responsibilities form that was required by the bankruptcy court to be 

signed by both the debtor and the debtor’s attorney. The form designates the 

rights and responsibilities of the debtor and the duties of the attorney; without the 

form, counsel fees are allowed only upon application to the bankruptcy court or 

pursuant to a written agreement between the debtor and the attorney that clearly 

delineates the basis of the fees. 

{¶ 7} The client paid respondent $500 to file the bankruptcy, $126 of 

which was retained by respondent for his fee. The bankruptcy case was later 

dismissed because the client did not follow the payment plan; the client was to 

pay $600 each month to fund the plan but paid only $300. 

{¶ 8} The respondent filed a second bankruptcy petition for the same 

client. He was paid $200 to file the petition; this time, he did file a signed rights-
January Term, 2010 

3 

and-responsibilities form. The client contacted the Chapter 13 bankruptcy 

trustee’s office to seek the refund of the $300 payment in the first bankruptcy. 

The client was initially informed that the trustee had filed a motion to compel 

respondent to disgorge his fees because he had not filed the rights-andresponsibilities form in the first case. In a later conversation, she was told that 

respondent had filed the required form in response to the motion to disgorge fees, 

thus allowing respondent to collect the $300 from the first filing as fees. 

{¶ 9} In response to the motion to disgorge fees, however, respondent’s 

staff had simply filed a duplicate copy of the rights-and-responsibilities form from 

the second bankruptcy, changing the dollar amount and case number. After this 

discovery, respondent was not awarded his attorney fees from the first bankruptcy 

filing, and the refund from that first filing was returned to the client. Respondent 

admitted at the panel’s hearing that he had not returned the $126 fee he had 

collected in the first filing and that the fee should be disgorged because the rightsand-responsibilities form had not been filed. 

The Personal-Injury Case 

{¶ 10} Another client hired respondent to represent her in a personalinjury case. After the client rejected a settlement offer of $1,981, respondent filed 

a lawsuit for the client. Respondent then communicated to the client that the 

defendant’s insurance carrier had offered $6,000 to resolve the claim. 

Respondent’s client accepted the settlement offer of $6,000; Respondent 

contacted the insurance adjuster to confirm the settlement but was informed that 

the company’s offer was for only $3,000. When respondent informed the client 

of his mistake, she informed him that she would settle only for $6,000. She later 

sent respondent a letter stating, “I do not wish to go to trial for this case so do 

what you need to do to resolve and finalize.” The board concluded that 

respondent believed this letter gave him authority to settle, so he accepted a 

settlement offer for $3,000. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

{¶ 11} Respondent sent the $3,000 check and release to the client, but she 

refused to sign the release and did not negotiate the check. Respondent did not 

withdraw from the case but failed to appear at the final pretrial conference and at 

the trial. The case was dismissed without prejudice, a fact respondent did not 

timely reveal to the client. Respondent’s motion to vacate the judgment of 

dismissal and his motion to reinstate the case were denied. The client was not 

advised of the denial of the motions. Months after the case was initially 

dismissed, the counsel representing the respondent in this disciplinary action 

notified the client that her case had been dismissed and that if she wished, she 

could refile it within the pertinent statute-of-limitations period. 

Sanction 

{¶ 12} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 

relevant facts, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and 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 Section 10 of 

the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings 

Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD 

Proc.Reg.”) Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. Because each disciplinary case is unique, we are not 

limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take into account “all relevant 

factors” in determining what sanction to impose. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 

{¶ 13} The board found that factors in mitigation of respondent’s conduct 

included his lack of a prior disciplinary record, BCGD Proc.Reg. (10)(B)(2)(a), 

and his full cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, BCGD Proc.Reg. 

(10)(B)(2)(d). The board found that there were no aggravating factors: the board 

made no finding that respondent had acted with a selfish motive, BCGD 

Proc.Reg. (10)(B)(1)(b), and he took responsibility for his actions and those of his 
January Term, 2010 

5 

staff, see BCGD Proc.Reg. (10)(B)(1)(g). The board also found that respondent 

had informed the personal-injury client of the procedure to refile her case. BCGD 

Proc.Reg. (10)(B)(1)(h). 

{¶ 14} The board considered two cases in making its recommendation, 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson, 95 Ohio St.3d 129, 2002-Ohio-1756, 766 

N.E.2d 590 (considering attorney’s lack of prior disciplinary record, the court 

imposed six-month suspension, all stayed, for failure to fully disclose to a 

bankruptcy court the total fees charged), and Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cox., 98 

Ohio St.3d 420, 2003-Ohio-1553, 786 N.E.2d 454 (court imposed a public 

reprimand instead of a suspension for an attorney’s failure to notify a client of a 

case’s dismissal because of the limited harm to the client and the isolated nature 

of the incident). Having considered these cases and the mitigating factors, albeit 

weak, we agree that the recommended sanction is appropriate. 

{¶ 15} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 

Ohio for six months; however, the suspension is stayed on the conditions that he 

commit no further misconduct during the stayed suspension period and that he 

pay, within 30 days of this order, $126 in restitution to his bankruptcy client. If 

respondent violates these conditions, the stay will be lifted, and respondent will 

serve the six-month suspension. Costs are taxed to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

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

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Edward H. Blakemore and Heather M. Zirke, for relator. 

Koblentz & Koblentz, Richard S. Koblentz, and Bryan L. Penvose, for 

respondent. 

______________________