[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown-Daniels, 135 Ohio St.3d 278, 2013-Ohio-955.] 

CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. BROWN-DANIELS. 

[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown-Daniels, 135 Ohio St.3d 278, 

2013-Ohio-955.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation—

Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—One-year 

suspension, partially stayed on conditions. 

(No. 2012-1708—Submitted January 23, 2013—Decided March 19, 2013.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-035. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Barbara Charmagne Brown-Daniels of Cleveland 

Heights, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0055655, was admitted to the practice 

of law in Ohio in 1991. Relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, 

charged Brown-Daniels with professional misconduct in a five-count complaint 

filed on April 12, 2010. 

{¶ 2} Although Brown-Daniels was served with the complaint by 

certified mail on April 16, 2010, she did not timely file an answer. Relator moved 

for default on May 16, 2011, and on June 8, 2011, Brown-Daniels moved the 

Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline for leave to file an answer 

instanter. 

{¶ 3} At the hearing, the panel granted relator’s motion to dismiss 

Counts Two, Three, and Four of its complaint, as well as certain alleged 

violations in Counts One and Five. Having heard Brown-Daniels’s testimony and 

reviewed the documentary evidence, the panel found that Brown-Daniels had 

committed the remaining charged misconduct and recommended that Brown-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Daniels be suspended from the practice of law for one year, with six months 

stayed on conditions. The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and 

misconduct and the proposed sanction. Neither party has objected to the board’s 

findings or recommendation. 

{¶ 4} Based on the evidence before us, we adopt the board’s findings of 

fact and misconduct, and we suspend Brown-Daniels from the practice of law in 

Ohio for one year, with the final six months of that suspension stayed on the 

conditions recommended by the board. 

Misconduct

{¶ 5} Brown-Daniels had been admitted to the bar for approximately 

nine years before she began practice as a solo practitioner. She served as board 

counsel for an organization known as Associated Real Estate Counseling, Inc., 

that provided consumers with credit counseling, mediation, and mortgage 

assistance. When that organization ceased operations in 2007, Brown-Daniels 

agreed to represent a number of its clients in bankruptcy proceedings. 

{¶ 6} On August 23, 2007, Brown-Daniels appeared before Judge Pat E. 

Morgenstern-Clarren in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern 

District of Ohio, Eastern Division, to show cause why she had not complied with 

the court’s order to return the $650 fee she had received in connection with the 

case In re Green, No. 07-13689. She advised the court that she had kept the fee 

because she had negotiated with the debtors to apply it to their new bankruptcy 

filing. The court, however, noted that it could not confirm Brown-Daniels’s 

explanation, because she had failed to file the required disclosure of compensation 

in the debtors’ new case. Therefore, the court found that Brown-Daniels had 

failed to comply with its previous order and revoked her electronic-filing 

privileges. 

{¶ 7} After the court suspended her electronic-filing privileges, BrownDaniels arranged for attorney Donald R. Murphy, an established attorney with no 
January Term, 2013 

3 

bankruptcy experience, to assist her with her bankruptcy practice. The terms of 

their arrangement were not reduced to writing. Brown-Daniels’s testimony and a 

sworn statement that Murphy gave to relator demonstrate that the two had 

differing views on the scope of their relationship and their roles—issues that were 

exacerbated by poor communication. Murphy stated that he was not aware of 

several of his obligations until the bankruptcy court issued orders to show cause 

and that he consequently sent Brown-Daniels a letter terminating their 

relationship on October 23, 2007. 

{¶ 8} Brown-Daniels and Murphy appeared at a November 29, 2007 

hearing before Judge Morgenstern-Clarren to address show-cause orders issued 

against them in three separate bankruptcy proceedings. At that hearing, they gave 

statements regarding their relationship and the actions they had taken in the cases 

at issue. After the hearing, Judge Morgenstern-Clarren issued an order on 

December 3, 2007, in which she found that Brown-Daniels had breached the 

standards that apply to attorneys practicing in the bankruptcy court by (1) filing 

documents under Murphy’s name when she knew she could not file them herself 

because her electronic-filing privileges had been revoked, (2) filing two 

documents bearing Murphy’s electronic signature without his knowledge or 

participation, and (3) permitting her nonlawyer staff to complete documents and 

forms and file them without any attorney supervision. Based on these findings, 

the court barred Brown-Daniels from filing any new bankruptcy petitions in that 

court or participating as counsel in cases filed by other attorneys until she 

satisfied certain educational requirements enumerated in the order and obtained 

the court’s written permission to resume filing. 

{¶ 9} Additionally, from August 2007 through June 2008, BrownDaniels was the subject of multiple disgorgement orders in cases before Judge 

Morgenstern-Clarren and two other judges in the United States Bankruptcy Court 

for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. In at least three of those 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

cases, the court found her in contempt and ordered her to pay sanctions of $25 per 

day until she complied with the disgorgement orders. Brown-Daniels testified 

that she had not appealed or otherwise challenged those orders, that she did not 

have the financial ability to pay the disgorgement orders or the sanctions imposed, 

and that she was awaiting the outcome of this disciplinary proceeding to address 

those orders. 

{¶ 10} With respect to the first count of relator’s complaint, the board 

found that Brown-Daniels had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to 

provide competent representation to a client) by virtue of the numerous 

disgorgement orders issued against her by the bankruptcy court and her 

association with Murphy—who had no bankruptcy experience—to handle her 

client’s bankruptcy matters following the revocation of her electronic-filing 

privileges. Based on Murphy’s sworn statement and the transcript—and noting 

relator’s failure to call Murphy as a witness at the hearing—the board was not 

persuaded that Brown-Daniels’s use of Murphy’s electronic password and 

signature was always unauthorized. It did find, however, that by using Murphy’s 

password and signature after he terminated their association, Brown-Daniels 

intended to avoid the order that restricted her own electronic-filing privileges and 

misrepresented the identity of the responsible attorney to the bankruptcy court. 

{¶ 11} The board found that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) 

(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit, or misrepresentation) and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 

conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). And with respect to 

Count Five, the board found that by failing to comply with a number of 

bankruptcy court orders to disgorge her attorney fees in multiple cases and failing 

to pay (or petition the court to stay the imposition of) daily sanctions imposed in 

several of those cases, Brown-Daniels had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and 8.4(h) 
January Term, 2013 

5 

(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 

lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 

Sanction 

{¶ 12} 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. 

{¶ 13} The board found Brown-Daniels’s pattern of misconduct involving 

multiple offenses, her refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct, 

and her failure to make restitution as required by the bankruptcy court’s 

disgorgement orders to be aggravating factors. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), 

(d), (g), and (i). The board expressed its concern that Brown-Daniels had blamed 

her staff for using Murphy’s electronic password and signature and had suggested 

that her problems in the bankruptcy court were the result of some animus by the 

trustee in another bankruptcy matter, portraying herself as a helpless victim rather 

than a person accountable for her own circumstances. 

{¶ 14} As mitigating factors, the board found that Brown-Daniels does not 

have a prior disciplinary record and that the bankruptcy court had imposed 

sanctions against her for the misconduct at issue in this case. See BCGD 

Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (f). Although Brown-Daniels testified that she suffered 

from anxiety and depression for which she had sought medical treatment, she 

presented no evidence or testimony from a medical or mental-health professional 

to substantiate her claims. Therefore, the board did not consider her alleged 

conditions to be mitigating. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

{¶ 15} Relator recommended that Brown-Daniels be suspended from the 

practice of law for one year with no more than six months of that suspension 

stayed on conditions. The board adopted relator’s recommendation, citing 

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Nance, 124 Ohio St.3d 57, 2009-Ohio-5957, 918 

N.E.2d 1000 (imposing a one-year suspension with six months stayed on 

conditions on an attorney who repeatedly failed to comply with bankruptcy orders 

to disgorge fees and pay assessed fines), and Disciplinary Counsel v. Gerchak, 

130 Ohio St.3d 143, 2011-Ohio-5075, 956 N.E.2d 292 (imposing a one-year fully 

stayed suspension on an attorney who used another attorney’s electronic-filing 

account to file a client’s bankruptcy petition because his own electronic-filing 

privileges had been suspended). The board recommended that Brown-Daniels be 

suspended from the practice of law for one year with six months stayed on the 

conditions that she complete six hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) in 

law-office management, in addition to the general requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, 

remit or resolve all fines and costs assessed by the bankruptcy court, and submit 

evidence of compliance with the continuing-education requirements imposed by 

Judge Morgenstern-Clarren’s December 2007 order barring Brown-Daniels from 

practicing law in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of 

Ohio, Eastern Division. 

{¶ 16} The board distinguished this case from Gerchak, noting that in that 

case there were multiple mitigating factors to support a fully stayed suspension. 

Among those factors were the absence of a prior disciplinary record, full and free 

disclosure and cooperative attitude during the disciplinary proceedings, the 

absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, evidence of Gerchak’s good character 

and reputation in the legal community, and the sanctions imposed by the 

bankruptcy court. Gerchak at ¶ 11; BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(b)(2)(a), (b), (d), (e), and 

(f). 
January Term, 2013 

7 

{¶ 17} We recognize that the facts of Nance are not entirely congruent 

with this case. Nance’s misconduct consisted of his mishandling of several 

bankruptcy matters, his failure to comply with disgorgement orders issued in 

those proceedings, and his failure to appear at the resultant contempt hearings. 

Nance, 124 Ohio St.3d 57, 2009-Ohio-5957, 918 N.E.2d 1000, at ¶ 5-9. In 

addition to Brown-Daniels’s failure to satisfy a number of disgorgement orders 

issued against her in her clients’ bankruptcy proceedings, she also used another 

attorney’s electronic-filing privileges without authorization to file at least two 

documents in the bankruptcy court while her own electronic-filing privileges were 

suspended. But Nance also had a prior six-month stayed suspension for misuse of 

his client trust account that weighed in favor of a stronger sanction. Id. at ¶ 12, 

citing Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nance, 119 Ohio St.3d 55, 2008-Ohio-3333, 

891 N.E.2d 746. 

{¶ 18} Having reviewed the record, the aggravating and mitigating factors 

present in this case, and the sanction imposed in Nance, we adopt the board’s 

findings of fact and misconduct and are persuaded that the board’s 

recommendation of a one-year suspension with six months conditionally stayed is 

the appropriate sanction for Brown-Daniels’s misconduct. 

{¶ 19} Accordingly, we suspend Barbara Charmagne Brown-Daniels from 

the practice of law for one year but stay the second six months of that suspension 

on the conditions that she (1) commit no further misconduct, (2) complete six 

hours of CLE in law-office management within 90 days of the date of this order 

that shall not apply to the general CLE requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and (3) 

remit or resolve all fines and costs assessed by the bankruptcy court within 90 

days of the date of this order. If Brown-Daniels fails to comply with the 

conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted and she will serve the full one-year 

suspension. Before seeking reinstatement to the practice of law in Ohio, BrownDaniels shall be required to submit evidence that she has complied with the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

continuing-education requirements imposed by Judge Morgenstern-Clarren’s 

December 3, 2007 order barring her from practicing law in the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. Costs are 

taxed to Brown-Daniels. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

David O. Simon and Suzana K. Koch, for relator. 

Gerald R. Walton, for respondent. 

______________________