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

Disciplinary Counsel v. Broyles, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4442.] 

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. 2015-OHIO-4442

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BROYLES. 

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

may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Broyles, Slip Opinion No. 

2015-Ohio-4442.] 

Attorneys―Misconduct―Representing new client in same matter as former client 

when new client’s interests are adverse to former client’s―Public 

reprimand. 

(No. 2015-0598—Submitted May 6, 2015—Decided October 29, 2015.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2014-106. 

_______________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Bruce Martin Broyles of Boardman, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0042562, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1989. On 

December 15, 2014, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Broyles with 

professional misconduct. Broyles had represented The Bank of New York Mellon 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

(“NY Mellon”) at a default hearing in a foreclosure case and obtained a judgment 

against Felix and Barbara Aponte. Approximately nine months later, Broyles was 

retained by the Apontes to defend them in the foreclosure action filed by NY 

Mellon. Broyles subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment and other 

pleadings in the case, arguing that the default judgment he had previously obtained 

against the Apontes should be vacated. NY Mellon did not give informed consent 

to allow Broyles to represent the Apontes. 

{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct1

 considered the cause 

on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement. See Gov.Bar R. V(16). 

{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Broyles stipulates to the facts 

alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.9 

(prohibiting a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter from 

representing another person in the same matter in which that person’s interests are 

materially adverse to the interests of the former client). 

{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that the mitigating factors include the absence of 

a prior disciplinary record, Broyles’s cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 

proceedings, his full and free disclosure of his actions, and his acknowledgement 

that his actions were improper. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and (4). The parties 

agree that there are no aggravating factors. Based upon Broyles’s stipulated 

misconduct and these factors, the parties stipulate that the appropriate sanction for 

Broyles’s misconduct is a public reprimand. 

{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline agreement 

conforms to Gov.Bar R. V(16) and recommend that we adopt the agreement in its 

entirety. In support of this recommendation, the parties referred to Geauga Cty. 

Bar Assn. v. Psenicka, 62 Ohio St.3d 35, 577 N.E.2d 1074 (1991) (a public 

reprimand was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who represented the 

 

1

 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 

renamed the Board of Professional Conduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
January Term, 2015 

3

husband in a divorce action after withdrawing from representing the wife in the 

same proceeding). In addition, the panel considered Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. 

Leiken, 143 Ohio St.3d 21, 2014-Ohio-5220, 34 N.E.3d 73 (a public reprimand was 

the appropriate sanction for an attorney who represented a passenger in a 

negligence action against a driver who the attorney previously represented 

regarding the same automobile accident). 

{¶ 6} We agree that Broyles violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.9 and, as stated in the 

parties’ agreement and as indicated by the cited precedent, that this conduct 

warrants a public reprimand. Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline 

agreement. 

{¶ 7} Accordingly, Bruce Martin Broyles is hereby publicly reprimanded. 

Costs are taxed to Broyles. 

Judgment accordingly. 

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

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Audrey E. Varwig, Assistant 

Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

Bruce Martin Broyles, pro se. 

_________________