Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Ass'n v. Gresley
127 Ohio St. 3d 430
Ohio2010Background
- Respondent Frank X. Gresley, Ohio attorney, was charged with eight counts of misconduct arising from accepting fees but not performing work and failing to cooperate.
- Stipulated facts and misconduct were filed; hearing was canceled and the matter was decided on the stipulations.
- The Board and court found violations of multiple Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, including 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16, and 8.4, across Counts One–Seven, plus cooperation violations under Gov.Bar R V(4)(G).
- Respondent failed to respond to clients, failed to refund unearned fees, and did not timely return client files or communicate status.
- Mitigating factors included no prior discipline and eventual cooperation; aggravating factors included selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, and harm to vulnerable clients.
- Sanction imposed: two-year suspension with the last six months stayed on conditions including full accounting to clients, restitution, and return of files; a monitor is to be appointed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent violated professional conduct rules across Counts One–Seven | Relator asserts extensive Rule violations. | Gresley contends no pattern of deliberate misconduct. | Violations proven; misconduct established. |
| Whether the sanction should be a two-year suspension with part stayed | Relator supports two-year suspension with partial stay. | Gresley argues for a lesser sanction. | Two-year suspension with last six months stayed. |
| Whether restitution, accounting, file return, and monitoring are appropriate conditions | Relator seeks full restitution, accounting, and monitoring. | Gresley disputes additional monitoring/conditions beyond restitution. | Conditions ordered: full accounting, restitution, file return; monitor appointed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Baas, 79 Ohio St.3d 293 (1997) (neglect of multiple matters; related disciplinary issues)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Marosan, 106 Ohio St.3d 430 (2005) (pattern of neglect; restitution and cooperation factors)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269 (2010) (neglect and failure to cooperate typically yield indefinite suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007) (aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctions)