2011 Ohio 1483
Ohio2011Background
- Respondent Bryan S. Freeman, admitted in 1999, faced an 18-count complaint alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Relator could not serve Freeman at his residence or office; service was effected by the Supreme Court clerk under Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).
- A master commissioner, appointed by the board, found extensive misconduct and recommended indefinite suspension; the board adopted those findings.
- Freeman engaged in misappropriation of client settlement funds, neglect of entrusted matters, poor client communication, false statements, and failure to cooperate in investigations.
- Grievants included multiple personal-injury clients (Sawyer, Marshall, Bruce, Mayle, Harris, Resnick, Olivito, Coates) with failures to distribute funds, respond to inquiries, and attend proceedings.
- The board concluded Freeman’s conduct violated numerous ethics rules (e.g., 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 8.4) and that he failed to cooperate in disciplinary proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Freeman’s misconduct warrants disbarment | Freeman’s misappropriation and pattern of neglect justify permanent disbarment. | Indefinite suspension is sufficient punishment given multiple violations but no prior disbarment. | Permanent disbarment warranted. |
| Whether misappropriation requires disbarment under Ohio precedent | Presumptive disbarment for misappropriation and dishonesty applies. | Discretion to impose indefinite suspension rather than disbarment persists. | Disbarment required; misappropriation presumptively disqualifies. |
| Whether Freeman’s failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigations supports permanent disbarment | Total noncooperation demonstrates grave fault and supports harsh sanction. | Some cooperation or mitigating factors could justify lesser sanction. | Noncooperation supports permanent disbarment. |
| Whether the record supports the board’s factual findings on the eight grievances | Affidavits and docket evidence establish violations across matters. | Some alleged 1.4(a)(1) obligations were not proven. | Record supports Motherboard findings; some claims dismissed for lack of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (aggravating factors and discipline standards in Ohio)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269 (2010-Ohio-136) (neglect plus dishonesty can warrant indefinite suspension)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 337 (2009-Ohio-764) (pattern of misconduct and neglect supports discipline)
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fernandez, 99 Ohio St.3d 426 (2003-Ohio-4078) (presumptive sanction for misappropriation is disbarment)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones, 112 Ohio St.3d 46 (2006-Ohio-6367) (pattern of dishonesty and misappropriation supports disbarment)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264 (2004-Ohio-2683) (persistent neglect and failure to account warrant discipline)