Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman
128 Ohio St. 3d 206
| Ohio | 2010Background
- Respondent Edward Paul Brueggeman, admitted in 1972, is Ohio-licensed attorney; the Board sought a 12-month suspension with probation and OLAP contract compliance.
- Relator filed a five-count complaint on December 8, 2008 for misconduct involving neglect, poor communication, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
- The Board adopted the panel’s findings and recommended a 12-month suspension, fully stayed with probation and conditions including OLAP, counseling, and no further misconduct.
- Counts 1–5 detail failures to diligently handle client matters, failure to inform clients, misfiled deeds and estate matters, file loss, missed deadlines, and nonresponse to disciplinary inquiries.
- The Board considered aggravating factors (pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, noncooperation) and mitigating factors (no prior discipline, cooperation post-complaint, mental health treatment).
- The court adopted the board’s findings and imposed a 12-month stayed suspension with conditions, plus costs; failure to comply would lift the stay and require full suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Brueggeman violate key duties in handling client matters (diligence, communication, information requests)? | Brueggeman neglected cases and failed to keep clients informed. | Brueggeman disputes some 1.3, 1.4(a)(3)/(4) violations. | Yes on 1.3, 1.4(a)(4), and 8.1(b); largely yes on 8.4(h) for several counts. |
| Did the board properly find violations of 8.4(h) reflecting adversely on fitness? | Board properly found 8.4(h) violations across counts. | Respondent disputed some 8.4(h) allegations. | Correctly found violations of 8.4(h) in Counts 1–5 to various extents. |
| Is a 12-month stayed suspension appropriate given the misconduct and mitigating factors? | Stay with probation and OLAP is appropriate. | Respondent argued for leniency given mitigating factors. | Yes; 12-month stayed suspension with probation, OLAP, counseling, and no further misconduct. |
| Should certain findings in Count Two (1.4(a)(3) and 4) be modified? | Board’s findings supported all aspects in Count Two. | Respondent contested 1.4(a)(3)/(4) findings. | Count Two findings modified: uphold 8.4(h) and 1.3; exclude 1.4(a)(3)/(4) violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (sanction and aggravating/mitigating factors guidance in discipline)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (emphasizes aggravating/mitigating factors in sanction)
- Disciplinary Couns. v. Brown, 124 Ohio St.3d 530 (2010-Ohio-580) (12-month stayed suspension with conditions based on neglect of matters)