Akron Bar Assn. v. Freedman
128 Ohio St. 3d 497
| Ohio | 2011Background
- In 2010, Akron Bar Association filed a disciplinary complaint against Bruce R. Freedman based on representations to a husband and wife seeking bankruptcy relief.
- The parties stipulated that Freedman violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4, 1.4(c), and 1.5(d)(3); four other alleged violations were dismissed.
- In January 2009, the couple paid Freedman a $3,500 flat fee to review finances and handle creditor matters related to bankruptcy.
- There was no written fee agreement, and Freedman did not inform the clients in writing that they might be entitled to a refund if he did not complete the representation or that he did not carry malpractice insurance.
- Freedman failed to promptly respond to client inquiries, did not inform them of a filing he made on their behalf, and the clients terminated services in October 2009, seeking a full refund of the retainer.
- The Board recommended a public reprimand, which the Court adopted, and costs were taxed to Freedman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Freedman's conduct a violation of 1.4, 1.4(c), and 1.5(d)(3)? | Freedman failed to communicate and to inform about insurance and fee refund rights. | Freedman acknowledged some communication lapses and disputes about the value of services; no dispute about the rule violations. | Yes; violations established. |
| Did the failure to notify about lack of malpractice insurance and potential fee refunds constitute violations? | Clients were entitled to notice under 1.4(c) and related rules. | The stipulations demonstrate lack of timely communication regardless of insurance notice. | Yes; 1.4(c) and 1.5(d)(3) violated. |
| What sanction is appropriate for the misconduct? | Disciplinary board recommended public reprimand. | No argued stronger sanction was necessary given mitigating factors. | Public reprimand with costs taxed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Godles, 128 Ohio St.3d 279 (2010-Ohio-6274) (publicly reprimanded for similar misconduct in communications and insurance notices)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda, 111 Ohio St.3d 418 (2006-Ohio-5860) (public reprimand for neglect and related fiduciary/communication failures)
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (reprimand-like sanctions for attorney misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (guidance on aggravating/mitigating factors in disciplinary sanctions)