[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bruce, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-85.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 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
. 2020-O HIO -85
D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . B RUCE
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bruce, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-85.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct— Conditionally stayed one-year suspension. (No. 2019-1076—Submitted Septemb er 11, 2019—Decided January 16, 2020.)

O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professiona l Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2018-071.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Matthew Gilbert Bruce, of West Chester, Ohio, Attor ney Registration No. 0083769, was admitte d to the practice of law i n Ohio in 2008. {¶ 2} In a formal complaint filed with the Board of Professional Cond uct on December 27, 2018, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Br uce with fourS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 violations of the Rules of Pro fessional Conduct relating to his attempts to collect money owed to him pursuant to a r esidential lease agreement. {¶ 3} The parties entered into stipul ations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors. {¶ 4} A panel of the board conducted a hearing and issued a report fi nding that Bruce committed the stipulated violations and recommending that he be suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully stayed o n the condition that he engage in no further misconduct. The board adopted the pane l’s report and recommendation, and no objec tions have been filed. {¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and agree that a conditionally stayed one-year su spension is the appropriate san ction for Bruce’s
misconduct.
Misconduct {¶ 6} On November 30, 2012, Bruce entered into an agreement with Laur a and Greg Zetts to lease a reside ntial property Bruce owned in M edina, Ohio. The lease agreement included an option to purchase the property, an d Bruce entered into a purchase agreement with the Zettses on March 31, 2017. The Z ettses purchased the property on May 31, 2017. {¶ 7} In the meantime, Bruce had not received rent payments from the Zettses for April and May 2017. Although the Zettses had issue d five checks to Bruce to pay the rent due, each of those checks was returned fo r insufficient funds. {¶ 8} Following the sale of the propert y, Bruce began to e-mail and c all the Zettses regarding their outstanding rent payments. On June 12, 2017, having received no response, Bruce sent L aura an e-mail to inform her that he would file a civil action against her if he did not receive payment by June 19. The e-mail further stated: “As I’m sure you are aware, under Ohio law, it is a fel ony to pass bad checks in the amount you have bounced in my accounts over the last six months. * * * [Y]ou have failed to deposit g ood funds to remedy. If you fail to make the paymentJanuary Term, 2020

3 described above, I will be forced to file a police report with the Medina Police Department.” {¶ 9} On June 19, Bruce followed up with a text informing Laura that if she did not deposit $3,010 into his account that day, he would file a lawsuit and a police report against her and Greg. That same day, Laura’s employer, attorney Vincent Stafford, called Bruce to discuss the matter, thereby putting B ruce on notice that the Zettses were represented by counsel. {¶ 10} On June 20, Bruce e-mailed Stafford demanding a payment of $4,515 to avoid civil and criminal litigation. Stafford inform ed Bruce that the Zettses contested his allegations and cautioned him that his th reats to have the Zettses prosecuted while he pursued his civil claims were “gros sly inappropriate.” Bruce replied to Stafford, sta ting that his comments about fili ng a police report were not threats and that he had “very clearly and explicitly laid o ut exactly what I intend to do if the Zetts[es] do not pay me what they owe me.” He als o reiterated that Laura had committed a felony. {¶ 11} On July 21, Bruce filed a civil complaint against the Zettses i n the Medina County Municipal Court. H e continued to communicate dir ectly with the Zettses after filing the complain t—even after September 1, when attorneys Mark
Owens and Natalie Grubb entere d an appearance on behalf of the Zettses and filed a motion for leave to plead. In responding to a request for in formation from Owens and Grubb, Bruce renewed his threat to file criminal charges ag ainst the Zettses.
And he reiterated tha t threat during a November 8 pretrial conf erence, maintaining that such a threat was “only impermissible if you have no basis .” {¶ 12} The Zettses answered Bruce’s civil complaint and asserted sever al counterclaims against him, and in January 2018, Bruce e-mailed their counsel an
offer to settle the matter fo r $2,000. The Zettses rejected th e offer. {¶ 13} On February 1, Bruce filed a cr iminal complaint against Greg Ze tts. He e-mailed a copy of the complaint to Laura and the Zettses’ c ounsel and offeredS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 to drop the criminal charges in exchange for a payment of $4,00 0 and a mutual release of all claims. The following week, he sent Laura and t he Zettses’ counsel a letter stating, “I just received the attached letter from the S upreme Court of Ohio Disciplinary Counsel’s office. It appears Ms. Zetts filed a gr ievance against me. Of course, the grievance was di smissed, but I demand to know im mediately the basis for Ms. Zetts’ grievan ce. I do not take kindly to meritl ess grievances * * *.” {¶ 14} The day before Greg Zetts’s arraignment, his criminal-defense counsel sent Bruce an e-mail offering $3,150 to settle the matt er. Bruce replied, stating that he would accept the offer provided that the Zettse s agreed to release all claims against him. He sent a copy of his response directly to Laura without Owens and Grubb’s permission. After Owens and Grubb attempted to neg otiate an additional matter to settle the civil action, Bruce informed th em that he and Laura had already verbally agreed to res olve the dispute. That same day, he asked Laura to confirm by text message tha t she and Greg had agreed to pay $3,150 in monthly payments of $500 in exchange for a full mutual release of all c laims that they had against each other. {¶ 15} Several days later, Owens and Grubb informed Bruce that the Zet tses were willing to settle Bruce’s civil and criminal claims for $3 ,150 but that they were unwilling to withdraw their counterclaims against him. Th ey also advised him that attorneys are not permitted to threaten criminal prose cution to gain an advantage in a civil matter. Bruce replied that his actions we re permissible and that he planned to enforce the agreem ent that he had negotiated dire ctly with Laura without Owens and Grubb’s knowledge. {¶ 16} The criminal charges against Greg Zetts were dismissed on March 27, 2018. That day, Bruce entere d into a confidential settleme nt agreement and release with the Zettses in which they represented that they ha d not filed any claims, complaints, charges, or lawsuits a gainst Bruce with any governm ental agency, this court, or any other court and th at they would immediately withd raw any claims theyJanuary Term, 2020

5 may have filed against Bruce. The next day, Laura e-mailed rel ator and asked to withdraw the grievance that she and Greg had filed against Bruc e. {¶ 17} The parties stipulated and the board found that Bruce’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(e) (prohi biting a lawyer from present ing, participating in presenting, or threatening to present criminal charges solely t o obtain an advantage in a civil matter) and 4.2 (prohibiting a lawyer from communica ting about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer unless the lawyer has the consent of the other l awyer or is authorized by law or a court order). They also agreed that his inclusion of a provision in the settlement agreement that prevented the Zettses from filing a g rievance with a disciplinary authority and required them to withdraw any pendin g disciplinary grievances violated Prof.Cond.R . 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer f rom engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). We adopt these findings of misconduct and, in accord with the parties’ stipulations, di smiss one remaining alleged rule violation.
Sanction {¶ 18} When imposing sanctions for atto rney misconduct, we consider al l relevant factors, including the e thical duties that the lawyer violated, the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. {¶ 19} The parties stipulated that two aggravating factors are present

— Bruce acted with a selfish motive and committed multiple offens es. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2) and (4). The board also attributed aggravating effect to the fact that
he continued his course of conduc t even after the Zettses’ coun sel informed him of its wrongful nature. In mitigati on, the parties stipulated tha t Bruce has no prior discipline, had made full and free disclosure to the board and demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the pr oceedings, and had presented evidence of his good character and reputation. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), and (5). InS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 addition, the board found that Bruce had recognized the wrongfu l nature of his conduct, was remorseful, and ha d accepted full responsibility f or his actions. {¶ 20} In considering the appropriate sanction for Bruce’s misconduct, the board examined prior cases in which we imposed a range of sanct ions on attorneys
who committed some of the rule violations at issue here. At th e least severe end of the range, we publicly reprimanded an attorney who threatened t o file criminal charges against a former client for nonpayment of legal fees. See Cincinnati Bar
Assn. v. Cohen , 86 Ohio St.3d 100, 712 N.E.2d 118 (1999). {¶ 21} At the opposite end of the range, we imposed a one-year suspens ion with six months conditionally stayed on an attorney who not onl y threatened to present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matt er but also acted on
behalf of a client to harass or maliciously injure another pers on and suggested that he would improperly influence pub lic officials to achieve the d esired outcome in
the client’s case. See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wise , 108 Ohio St.3d 164, 2006- Ohio-550, 842 N.E.2d 35. {¶ 22} The board also considered several cases between those extremes, in which we imposed conditionally stayed one-year suspensions on a ttorneys whose
misconduct had some simila rities to Bruce’s. See, e.g., Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v.
Cameron , 130 Ohio St.3d 299, 2011-Ohio-5200, 958 N.E.2d 138; Disciplinary
Counsel v. Bennett , 146 Ohio St.3d 237, 2016-Ohio-3045, 54 N.E.3d 1232; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Dearfield , 130 Ohio St.3d 363, 2011-Ohio-5295, 958
N.E.2d 910. In Cameron and Bennett , the attorneys communicated directly with a party to a legal dispute without the consent of that party’s le gal counsel. But those attorneys committed additional act s of misconduct that Bruce di d not commit. For example, Cameron also made false representations to the trial c ourt, and Bennett also neglected several clients’ legal matters and failed to app ear at numerous hearings and status conferences , including his own contempt hea ring. And although Dearfield conditioned a client’s refund on the withdra wal of a disciplinaryJanuary Term, 2020

7 grievance, he also charged a nonrefundable fee without advising the client that he might be entitled to a refund if D earfield did not complete the representation. {¶ 23} The board acknowledged that none of the cases it considered
involved the same combination of violations present here. None theless, noting the relevant aggravating factors and Bruce’s credible testimony, re morse, and acceptance of full responsibility for his misconduct, the board concluded that
Bruce’s misconduct warranted a san ction toward the middle of th e range of sanctions imposed in those cases. Therefore, the board recomme nds that we suspend Bruce from the practic e of law for one year and stay th e entire suspension on the condition that he engag e in no further misconduct. {¶ 24} Having reviewed the record and considered the unique combinatio n of ethical violations and aggravating and mitigating factors pr esent in this case in light of our precedent, we accept the board’s analysis and agre e that a conditionally stayed one-year suspension is th e appropriate sanction in this case. {¶ 25} Accordingly, Matthew Gilbert Bruce is suspended from the practi ce of law for one year, fully stayed on the condition that he enga ge in no further
misconduct. Costs are taxed to Bruce. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________ Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald M. Scheet z, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Coughlan Law Firm, L.L.C., and Jonathan Edward Coughlan, for respondent.

_________________