Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. Frenden
149 Ohio St. 3d 548
| Ohio | 2016Background
- John Barry Frenden, admitted 2003, was charged with multiple professional misconduct counts including neglect, poor communication, failing to reduce contingent-fee agreements to writing, failing to notify clients of lapse of malpractice insurance, trust-account mismanagement, forgery, and engaging in sexual activity with a client during representation.
- Dubois: retained for a 2011 auto-injury claim; Frenden never wrote the contingent-fee agreement, negotiated and accepted a $35,000 settlement without adequate investigation or client authorization, forged a medical-release signature, delayed depositing and distributing funds, and ultimately distributed reduced proceeds after grievance filed.
- Sigler: retained for personal-injury and later divorce matters; Frenden misnamed plaintiffs, failed to file required pretrial materials, dismissed and refilled without client consent, settled the injury case for $5,000 (less than special damages) without client authorization, deposited settlement funds without release or client signature, and failed to distribute proceeds; divorce representation included missed filings, poor preparation, and inadequate communication.
- A.S.: met Frenden while employed as an exotic dancer; he represented her in divorce/juvenile matters, demanded money, accepted nonmonetary payments, threatened to report her children to social services to extort money, engaged in sexual relations with her during representation (no prior consensual relationship), arranged for his secretary to take custody of her children, and continued representation despite conflicts of interest.
- Trust-account & records: Frenden’s client-trust-account records were inaccurate; roughly $18,000 could not be properly accounted for; he disbursed more than received in some matters and could not identify rightful recipients.
- Procedural posture: Board of Professional Conduct found multiple violations; panel recommended indefinite suspension; the board recommended permanent disbarment; the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the board’s findings and permanently disbarred Frenden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence/neglect (failure to investigate, prepare, or prosecute claims) | Relator: Frenden failed to competently represent clients, neglecting discovery, medical records, and trial preparation | Frenden offered stress/mitigation but did not deny core failures | Court: Violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 and 1.3 proved; misconduct established |
| Communication/fee disclosures (failure to inform, reduce contingent fees, notify re malpractice insurance) | Relator: Frenden failed to keep clients informed, failed to reduce contingent-fee agreements to writing, and failed to notify clients in writing about lapse of malpractice insurance | Frenden acknowledged lapses and offered limited mitigating personal stress | Court: Violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4, 1.4(c), and 1.5(c)(1) proved |
| Trust-account mismanagement/undistributed funds/forgery | Relator: Frenden mismanaged trust account, misappropriated or failed to distribute funds, and forged client signature on release | Frenden offered incomplete accounting and claimed disputes over fees | Court: Violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 1.15(d), and 8.4(h) (forgery/adverse conduct) proved |
| Conflicts, sexual misconduct, and coercion (continuing representation when personal interests existed; sexual relations with client) | Relator: Frenden continued representation despite personal conflicts, engaged in sexual activity with a client during representation (no preexisting consensual relationship), and used coercion/threats | Frenden did not dispute relationship facts but sought mitigation; no prior consensual relationship existed | Court: Violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2), 1.8(j), and 8.4(h) proved; aggravating conduct warranted severe sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hines, 133 Ohio St.3d 166 (2012) (suspension imposed for romantic relationship with vulnerable client and abandonment at critical case juncture)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kodish, 110 Ohio St.3d 162 (2006) (indefinite suspension for client neglect, communication failures, conflicts, trust-account problems, and sexual relationship with client representative)
- Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Davies, 144 Ohio St.3d 558 (2015) (permanent disbarment for settlement fraud, failure to distribute proceeds, and client-abandonment)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Longino, 128 Ohio St.3d 426 (2011) (permanent disbarment for multiple client harms including mishandled settlements and conflicts)