Opinion
No. 91-1743
Submitted December 4, 1991 —
Decided April 15, 1992.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 90-53.
Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed an amended complaint charging respondent, Michael J. Bregger, with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board"). The pertinent facts, as disclosed in the record, are as follows:
On January 22, 1990, Bregger represented a client before Judge Frederick J. Cartolano of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. Before the session, the family of Bregger's client approached the judge to express concern about Bregger, who appeared to be drunk. Judge Cartolano described Bregger as glassy-eyed, staggering, hardly able to stand, incoherent, and confused; moreover, Bregger was unable to understand a simple question from the bench. However, Bregger denied that he was drunk. Judge Cartolano had to reschedule the case because he considered Bregger incompetent to handle any legal matter that day.
On July 10, 1990, Bregger appeared in Judge Deidra L. Hair's courtroom in Hamilton County Municipal Court, although he had two pretrial hearings scheduled before other judges and nothing scheduled before Judge Hair. Bregger was drunk. A fellow attorney, Michael D. Lutes, took Bregger aside and told him he was not competent to represent clients. Lutes substituted for Bregger in the pretrial hearings. Meanwhile, Bregger sat down on a bench outside the courtroom and either fell asleep or passed out. Lutes' paralegal later took Bregger back to his office.
On March 7, 1990, Earl Foster paid Bregger $750 to defend him on a charge of driving while under the influence. On March 15, Foster was sentenced on that charge. A portion of the sentence was suspended pending Foster's completion of an alcohol treatment program. The court granted Foster a permit to exercise limited driving privileges for medical needs only; however, Bregger failed to pick up Foster's permit.
On April 7, 1990, Foster encountered Bregger while both were in a hospital undergoing treatment for alcoholism. Foster asked Bregger about the permit, and Bregger promised to get it by the time Foster was released. However, Bregger did not do so. Nor did he contact Foster until July 25, when he wrote Foster a letter stating he could not represent him at the September 10 sentencing hearing on his case. Foster then wrote Bregger discharging him and requesting that Bregger itemize the work done, bill Foster for it, and refund any payments exceeding the amount billed. Bregger did not respond.
Foster appeared in court on September 10 and, seeing Bregger there, asked Bregger about the permit. Bregger told Foster he needed another $250; Foster refused to pay. Foster's subsequent attempts to contact Bregger failed. On March 8, 1991, Foster went back to court and got the permit himself.
Bregger was also charged with misconduct involving two other clients; however, the board recommended dismissal of these charges.
During the period of Bregger's alleged misconduct, he was undergoing various medical and personal problems. Between February and April 1990, he was hospitalized twice for alcoholism. In May, he suffered a seizure, causing him to injure his head and shoulder and exacerbating a pre-existing back problem. He was hospitalized for five days. Bregger's father died of cancer in June. Bregger was hospitalized again on July 10 for depression, drug abuse, and alcoholism and was not released until August 9.
After the hearing, the panel found that Bregger had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) by appearing before Judges Cartolano and Hair while drunk, and DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter) by his handling of Foster's case. The panel recommended an indefinite suspension. The board concurred in the panel's findings and recommendation.
With respect to the incident in Judge Hair's courtroom, both the panel and board stated that Bregger had violated DR 1-102(A)(4); however, this is an evident typographical error. DR 1-102(A)(4) deals with conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, none of which was involved in the incident. We take it that the panel and board meant to say that Bregger had violated DR 1-102(A)(5), since both bodies found a DR 1-102(A)(5) violation based on the similar incident in Judge Cartolano's courtroom.
Deborah DeLong, Naomi C. Dallob and Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator.
Michael J. Bregger, pro se.
We concur in the findings and recommendation of the board. Michael J. Bregger is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.