[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Frenden, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7198.] 

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. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-7198

CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. FRENDEN. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Frenden, Slip Opinion 

No. 2016-Ohio-7198.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 

including failing to provide competent representation to a client and failing 

to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a legal matter, 

failing to obtain informed consent to settle a case, and engaging in sexual 

activity with a client when a consensual sexual relationship did not exist 

prior to the client-lawyer relationship—Permanent disbarment. 

(No. 2016-0265—Submitted April 5, 2016—Decided October 6, 2016.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 

Court, No. 2015-015. 

__________________ 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, John Barry Frenden of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0076200, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2003. In 

a July 16, 2015 amended complaint, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar 

Association, charged Frenden with professional misconduct arising from his 

neglect of client matters, failure to reasonably communicate with his clients, failure 

to advise his clients that he did not carry malpractice insurance, failure to reduce 

contingent-fee agreements to writing, failure to promptly deliver funds that a client 

was entitled to receive, continuing to represent a client when there was a substantial 

risk that his ability to represent the client would be limited by his own personal 

interest, and engaging in a sexual relationship with a client. 

{¶ 2} Frenden admitted to some of the facts in an untimely answer to the 

amended complaint, and the parties stipulated to additional facts. After two days 

of hearing, a panel of the Board of Professional Conduct issued a report finding that 

Frenden had engaged in all the charged misconduct and recommended that he be 

indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board adopted the panel’s 

findings of fact and misconduct but recommended that Frenden be permanently 

disbarred. There are no objections to the board’s report or recommendation. 

{¶ 3} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and 

permanently disbar Frenden from the practice of law in Ohio. 

Misconduct 

Count One: The Dubois Matter 

{¶ 4} Diane Dubois retained Frenden to represent her in a personal-injury 

matter arising from a January 4, 2011 motor-vehicle accident in which a semi 

backed into the front of a vehicle in which she was a passenger. But Frenden did 

not reduce their contingent-fee agreement to writing. 

{¶ 5} Dubois recorded notes of her appointments and communications with 

Frenden on her calendar, which showed that on January 10, 2011, he advised her to 
January Term, 2016 

3

see a chiropractor. But she had no further contact with Frenden in 2011. Frenden 

acknowledged that there was never any question about the tortfeasor’s liability for 

the accident, but he failed to gather adequate information to fully evaluate the 

nature and seriousness of Dubois’s injury claims before he engaged in settlement 

negotiations. 

{¶ 6} In the spring of 2012, an adjuster for the tortfeasor’s insurance 

company attempted to contact Frenden to discuss Dubois’s case. When those 

efforts failed, the adjustor wrote to Frenden and offered to settle Dubois’s claims 

for $28,000, claiming that she had preexisting back injuries. Dubois testified that 

on July 12, 2012, Frenden told her that he had received a settlement offer of 

$83,000—but the insurer had made no such offer and Frenden had made no such 

demand. Dubois’s special damages totaled approximately $41,000, and relator’s 

expert testified that the settlement value of her case would have greatly exceeded 

that value. Frenden admitted that his typical settlement demand would have been 

four times that amount—or approximately $164,000—yet he claimed that Dubois 

agreed to settle her case for only $35,000. 

{¶ 7} Dubois attempted to discuss the status of the settlement with Frenden 

numerous times from late July 2012 through early February 2013, but her efforts 

were unsuccessful. In the interim, Frenden informed the insurer that Dubois was a 

Medicare recipient. Consequently, on November 28, 2012, the insurer requested 

that Frenden have Dubois sign and return a consent form authorizing the insurer to 

report her injuries to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Frenden 

returned the $35,000 settlement check to the insurer on December 18, 2012, and 

sought to renegotiate the terms of the settlement due to subrogation issues arising 

from Medicare coverage. 

{¶ 8} The insurer refused to renegotiate the settlement, and the statute of 

limitations for Dubois’s claim expired on January 4, 2013. More than a month 

later, Frenden sent the insurer the authorization for release of medical information, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

which was purportedly signed by Dubois. However, Dubois testified that she had 

never seen the document, that the signature was not hers, and that her name 

appeared to be misspelled. In a May 9, 2013 letter to the insurer, Frenden stated 

that he had recently discovered that Dubois was a Medicaid recipient—not a 

Medicare recipient as he had previously reported. Six days later, he went to 

Dubois’s home and had her sign a general release of all claims. He also had her 

indorse a second settlement check issued by the insurer, but he did not discuss the 

amount of the settlement or show her the front of the check. 

{¶ 9} Frenden waited more than a month to deposit the settlement check in 

his client trust account and ignored Dubois’s attempts to contact him about the 

settlement. Nearly one year after Frenden deposited the $35,000 settlement 

check—and after Dubois filed a grievance against him—he finally released 

$20,820.42 to her, reimbursed Medicaid $ 8,621.67, and distributed the remaining 

settlement proceeds to six of her medical providers. 

{¶ 10} The panel found that Frenden had failed to provide competent 

representation to Dubois in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to 

provide competent representation to a client) because he failed to understand the 

difference between Medicaid and Medicare claims for subrogation purposes, failed 

to obtain medical records related to her accident, failed to evaluate the seriousness 

of her claims before negotiating a settlement, and failed to obtain an adequate 

settlement of her claims. In addition, the panel found that Frenden violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(1) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client of any decision or 

circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required), 

1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status 

of a matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with 

reasonable requests for information from the client), 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to 

inform the client if the lawyer does not maintain professional liability insurance 

and obtain a signed acknowledgment of that notice from the client), and 1.5(c)(1) 
January Term, 2016 

5

(requiring an attorney to have set forth a contingent-fee agreement in a writing 

signed by the client). Finding that he had forged Dubois’s signature on the medical 

release, had her indorse the settlement check without disclosing the settlement 

amount, and had delayed distribution of the settlement proceeds, the panel also 

concluded that Frenden violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from 

engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 

Count Two: The Sigler Matters 

Personal Injury 

{¶ 11} Diane Sigler retained Frenden to file a personal-injury action on 

behalf of herself and her minor son for injuries they sustained in a January 2008 

motor-vehicle accident. Although Frenden agreed to represent the mother and son 

on a contingent-fee basis, he failed to reduce that agreement to a signed writing. 

{¶ 12} Frenden filed a complaint on January 15, 2010, but erroneously 

named Sigler’s husband, rather than her son, as a plaintiff. Following the final 

pretrial conference, the court ordered the parties to submit trial briefs, motions in 

limine, jury interrogatories, and jury instructions no later than seven days before a 

trial scheduled for March 3, 2011. Opposing counsel also filed a timely motion in 

limine based upon Frenden’s failure to submit an expert report that was necessary 

to establish causation of the Siglers’ injuries. Frenden filed none of the required 

documents. 

{¶ 13} Frenden voluntarily dismissed the case just days before trial without 

Sigler’s knowledge or consent. He refiled the action in February 2012 and once 

again erroneously named Sigler’s husband, rather than her son, as a plaintiff. He 

failed to appear for a case-management conference and the final pretrial hearing. 

He also failed to file additional documents as ordered by the court. Frenden then 

settled the case without Sigler’s knowledge or consent on the eve of trial for 

$5,000—even though Sigler’s special damages alone were approximately $11,870. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

Frenden admitted that his typical settlement demand would have been close to 

$46,000. 

{¶ 14} Opposing counsel sent Frenden a settlement check and release on 

November 19, 2012, and asked him not to negotiate the check until the release was 

signed. But Frenden disregarded that request and deposited the check into his client 

trust account on February 21, 2013, without obtaining Sigler’s signature on the 

check or on the release. He failed to provide a requested accounting. Sigler filed 

a malpractice action against Frenden in March 2015. 

Domestic-Relations Matter 

{¶ 15} In October 2012, Frenden began to represent Sigler in a divorce 

proceeding initiated by her husband. Sigler paid $1,500 in advance but did not 

recall having a written fee agreement. 

{¶ 16} Frenden did not comply with Sigler’s requests that he hire a forensic 

accountant and file a motion to compel her husband to provide certain documents. 

He also failed to keep appointments with Sigler and failed to obtain financial 

information from her in a timely manner. Frenden changed his telephone number 

during the representation but did not give Sigler the new number. He also failed to 

file a pretrial statement, a witness list, and a list of exhibits. Although Sigler copied 

over 725 pages of documents for Frenden to produce in discovery and witnessed 

him deliver them to opposing counsel, Frenden failed to document the submission 

of discovery, and opposing counsel denied having received the documents. Fearing 

that the evidence would be excluded at trial, Sigler personally delivered the 

documents to opposing counsel and obtained a signed receipt just two days before 

trial. 

{¶ 17} Frenden admitted that he was not prepared for the trial, but the 

parties and their counsel began settlement negotiations using a draft agreement 

prepared by the husband’s attorney. Sigler ultimately received the marital home 

with a negotiated net equity of $100,000, assumed liability for all the debt 
January Term, 2016 

7

(approximately $143,000), and paid her former husband approximately $72,000. 

Although her former husband received one-half of her Individual Retirement 

Account (“IRA”), she did not receive any portion of his IRA. Sigler wanted to 

indicate on the agreement that her signature was made under duress, but Frenden 

would not permit her to do so. As they were leaving the courthouse, Frenden 

mentioned that he had no malpractice insurance. 

{¶ 18} The proceeds from Sigler’s personal-injury settlement remained in 

Frenden’s client trust account at the time of his disciplinary hearing. Frenden 

claimed that ownership of the funds was in dispute and that Sigler owed him an 

additional $10,000 in attorney fees for her divorce. 

Findings of Misconduct 

{¶ 19} The panel found that Frenden had failed to competently represent 

Sigler, neglected her legal matters, failed to keep her reasonably informed about 

the status of her legal matters, failed to obtain her informed consent to the 

settlement of her case, failed to notify her in writing that he did not maintain 

professional liability insurance, and failed to reduce his contingent-fee agreement 

to writing, thereby violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with 

reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(1), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(c), and 

1.5(c)(1). The panel also found that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d) (requiring a 

lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the client is entitled to 

receive) by failing to distribute Sigler’s settlement proceeds and 8.4(d) (prohibiting 

conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) by failing to appear at a 

case-management conference, failing to file a notice of transmission of discovery, 

and by failing to file a pretrial statement in Sigler’s personal-injury matter. 

Furthermore, the board found that Frenden violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) by failing 

to honor opposing counsel’s request that he have Sigler sign the release before 

negotiating the settlement check. 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

Count Three: The Divorce and Juvenile Court Proceedings of A.S. 

{¶ 20} Frenden first met A.S. at a club where she worked as an exotic 

dancer. He began to represent her in a divorce in October 2013. Frenden filed an 

answer and counterclaim on behalf of A.S., but waited nearly three months to seek 

court-ordered support for her and her three children—a preteen and infant twins. 

After the domestic-relations court certified the allocation of parental rights and 

responsibilities to the juvenile court, Frenden represented A.S. in that proceeding 

as well. 

{¶ 21} Frenden did not advise A.S. in writing that he did not carry 

professional liability insurance in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c). A.S. estimated 

that she paid Frenden approximately $3,000 for his representation. She also 

testified that he was always asking for more money, that he asked her to use her 

government food card to buy him groceries, and that he had her clean his house in 

exchange for a $20 per hour credit applied to her legal fees. But Frenden did not 

maintain records of the payments A.S. made or submit any billing invoices to her. 

{¶ 22} At one point, Frenden sent A.S. a text in which he threatened to take 

her twins to Children and Family Services if she did not give him more money. He 

also took risqué pictures of her and planned to publish them on a calendar, claiming 

that he would give her half the money and apply the remainder to her attorney fees. 

A.S. testified that she engaged in sexual relations with Frenden while he was 

representing her because she felt it was the only way to get him to leave her alone. 

The panel found that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) and 1.8(j) 

(prohibiting a lawyer from soliciting or engaging in sexual activity with a client 

unless a consensual sexual relationship existed prior to the client-lawyer 

relationship). 

{¶ 23} A.S. allowed Frenden’s secretary (and former girlfriend), Amber 

Bell, to take physical custody of her twins in early 2014. A.S. expressed her desire 

to have the children returned to her as early as March of that year, but Bell 
January Term, 2016 

9

maintained physical custody of the children until after Mothers’ Day 2014. Bell 

also retained an attorney and, for a time, sought permanent custody of the twins. 

Frenden continued to represent A.S. in her domestic-relations and juvenile cases 

even after she had requested that Bell return the twins to her, and he failed to advise 

her how to regain physical custody of her children. The panel found that his 

continued representation violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2) (providing that a lawyer’s 

continued representation of a client creates a conflict of interest if there is a 

substantial risk that the lawyer’s ability to represent the client will be materially 

limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, former client, or third 

person, or by the lawyer’s own personal interests). 

{¶ 24} The panel determined that Frenden had engaged in conduct that was 

prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) when 

he failed to appear at A.S.’s May 2014 divorce hearing. Although he claimed that 

he did not represent her at that time, the docket showed that he did not move to 

withdraw as her counsel until early July. Moreover, the panel found that Frenden 

had failed to act with reasonable diligence to obtain temporary support for A.S. in 

her divorce proceeding, that he had failed to reasonably consult with her about the 

means by which her objectives were to be accomplished, and that he had failed to 

appear at a hearing in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4(a)(2). 

Count Four: Client-Trust-Account Violations 

{¶ 25} At the time of Frenden’s disciplinary hearing, he could not properly 

account for approximately $18,000 that remained in his client trust account. He 

admitted that his client-trust-account records were inaccurate and in disarray and 

that he did not even know what the term “reconciliation” meant. The evidence also 

shows that in two separate cases, he disbursed more money than he had received. 

On these facts, the panel concluded that Frenden violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) 

(requiring a lawyer to hold funds belonging to a client or third party in a client trust 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

account separate from his own property and to maintain certain records regarding 

the funds held in that account). 

Sanction 

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

several relevant factors, including the ethical duties the lawyer violated, relevant 

aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. See

Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A). 

{¶ 27} The panel found as a mitigating factor that Frenden had no prior 

disciplinary record. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1). It also found that he had 

experienced a stressful period in his life after discovering that he was not the father 

of a child he had believed to be his. He claimed that his sadness made it difficult 

to perform as an attorney, but he testified that he had never been diagnosed with 

depression, that he was not under the care of a psychiatrist, and that he remained 

able to function. Although Frenden’s doctor had prescribed Adderall for attention 

deficit three or four years before the disciplinary hearing, Frenden believed that the 

treatment had been effective and made no claim that any mental disorder 

contributed to his misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7). Nonetheless, the panel 

attributed some mitigating effect to the stress that Frenden experienced upon 

learning that he had not fathered the child. 

{¶ 28} Aggravating factors found by the panel include Frenden’s dishonest 

and selfish motive; his pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses; his 

failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process—as demonstrated by his repeated 

requests for extensions of time as deadlines approached and his failure to provide 

complete responses to relator’s investigator; his false statements to relator’s 

investigator about his application to obtain professional liability insurance; the 

harm he caused to vulnerable clients; and his failure to distribute Sigler’s settlement 

proceeds. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (8), and (9). 
January Term, 2016 

11 

{¶ 29} The panel considered the sanctions we have imposed in cases 

involving comparable acts of misconduct. For example, in Disciplinary Counsel v. 

Hines, 133 Ohio St.3d 166, 2012-Ohio-3929, 977 N.E.2d 575, we imposed a 12-

month suspension with six months stayed on the license of an attorney who had 

engaged in a romantic relationship with a vulnerable client and had left her without 

legal assistance at a critical juncture in her case. And in Cleveland v. Kodish, 110 

Ohio St.3d 162, 2006-Ohio-4090, 852 N.E.2d 160, we indefinitely suspended an 

attorney who neglected her clients’ bankruptcy cases, ignored their efforts to 

communicate, simultaneously represented clients with adverse interests without 

obtaining their informed consent or notifying the bankruptcy court, issued a check 

from her client trust account that was returned for insufficient funds, and engaged 

in a consensual sexual relationship with the representative of two of her corporate 

clients. 

{¶ 30} But the panel also considered and found Frenden’s conduct most 

analogous to that in cases in which we permanently disbarred attorneys who failed 

to competently represent clients, dismissed or settled legal matters without their 

clients’ consent, fraudulently executed settlement documents, either 

misappropriated or failed to distribute settlement proceeds, and continued to 

represent clients whose interests conflicted with the interests of the attorney or other 

clients. See Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Davies, 144 Ohio St.3d 558, 2015-Ohio-4904, 

45 N.E.3d 975; and Disciplinary Counsel v. Longino, 128 Ohio St.3d 426, 2011-

Ohio-1524, 945 N.E.2d 1040. 

{¶ 31} The panel acknowledged that Frenden’s misconduct, like that of 

Davies and Longino, is sufficient to warrant permanent disbarment. However, 

based upon relator’s recommendation that Frenden be indefinitely suspended from 

the practice of law and the presence of two mitigating factors—the absence of a 

prior disciplinary record and Frenden’s stress upon learning that he was not the 

father of the child he had believed to be his—the panel recommended that Frenden 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12 

be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with certain conditions on his 

reinstatement. 

{¶ 32} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct. 

Noting the egregious nature of Frenden’s conduct, however, which according to the 

board involved theft and forgery but also harm to vulnerable clients, the board 

recommended that Frenden be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in 

Ohio. No one has objected to the board’s recommendation. 

{¶ 33} The record in this case clearly and convincingly demonstrates that 

Frenden neglected the legal matters of his clients, failed to provide them with 

competent representation, settled their personal-injury cases without proper 

preparation or client authorization and for far less than their estimated worth, forged 

a client’s signature on a medical release, unreasonably delayed the distribution of 

settlement proceeds to one client, and entirely failed to distribute any settlement 

proceeds to another. He also failed to advise his clients that his professional 

liability insurance had been cancelled in November 2011, thus depriving them of a 

significant avenue for recourse. 

{¶ 34} Frenden’s trust account records are incomplete and inaccurate. He 

has misappropriated some client funds—distributing more money than he received 

in some cases and less in others—and he could not identify who was entitled to 

receive the more than $18,000 that remained in his client trust account at the time 

of his disciplinary hearing. Frenden also engaged in a sexual relationship with a 

client, threatened to turn that client’s children over to Children and Family Services 

if she did not give him more money, arranged for his secretary to take physical 

custody of the client’s young children, and then failed to withdraw from the 

representation when the client sought to have the children returned to her. We 

therefore adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and agree that the 

above-described conduct—which began in 2008—manifests a significant 
January Term, 2016 

13 

deficiency in Frenden’s core ethical obligations of honesty, trustworthiness, 

diligence, and reliability. 

{¶ 35} We find that Frenden’s misconduct is analogous to that found in 

Longino and Davies. And because we find that the numerous aggravating factors 

present in this case far outweigh the two mitigating factors identified and relied 

upon by the panel, we agree that permanent disbarment is the proper sanction for 

Frenden’s misconduct. 

{¶ 36} Accordingly, John Barry Frenden is permanently disbarred from the 

practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to Frenden. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., 

concur. 

O’DONNELL and KENNEDY, JJ., dissent, and would indefinitely suspend 

respondent. 

_________________ 

McDonald Hopkins L.L.C., R. Jeffrey Pollock, and Kathleen J. Sanz, for 

relator. 

John B. Frenden, pro se. 

_________________