Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine
144 Ohio St. 3d 115
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Respondent Edward R. Bunstine, admitted to practice in 1981, had two prior disciplinary actions in 2012–2013.
- Relator filed a May 13, 2013 complaint alleging Count One: misconduct in Freeland criminal matter and Count Two: failure to cooperate.
- Panel dismissed some charges but found by implication an attorney-client relationship with Freeland and multiple misconduct theories.
- Board adopted panel findings but recommended indefinite suspension with credit for prior suspension; Bunstine objected, arguing lack of proof and due process issues.
- This Court dismissed Count One for lack of clear and convincing evidence of an implied attorney-client relationship; sustained Count Two for failure to cooperate and suspended Bunstine for six months with no credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an attorney-client relationship existed | Relator: implied relationship arose from conduct and payments. | Bunstine: no agreement; reserved right to review discovery before accepting matter. | No clear and convincing evidence of an implied relationship; Count One dismissed. |
| Whether Bunstine violated cooperation rules | Relator: Bunstine failed to respond to multiple inquiries, violating 8.1(b) and former Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). | Bunstine: not required to respond to questions deemed irrelevant or during earlier stages. | Count Two sustained; failure to cooperate established; disciplinary sanction imposed. |
| Appropriateness of sanction | Relator/board suggested harsher sanction given prior offenses and pattern of conduct. | Bunstine’s prior suspensions argued for time to resolve; remediation insufficient to warrant indefinite suspension. | Six-month suspension with no credit for prior suspension; costs taxed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Jaffe, 121 Ohio St.3d 260 (2009-Ohio-763) (six-month suspension for failing to respond to a disciplinary investigation)
- Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Reid, 85 Ohio St.3d 327 (1999-Ohio-708) (clear and convincing evidence standard for disciplinary findings)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hardiman, 100 Ohio St.3d 260 (2003-Ohio-5596) (attorney-client relationship by implication valid under conduct and reasonable expectations)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine, 131 Ohio St.3d 302 (2012-Ohio-977) (prior discipline context in Bunstine II)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine ("Bunstine II"), 136 Ohio St.3d 276 (2013-Ohio-3681) (previous disciplined conduct and sanctions as context)