Opinion
No. 92-1706
Submitted October 13, 1992 —
Decided December 9, 1992.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 91-44.
On December 9, 1991, relator, Darke County Bar Association, filed a two-count complaint against respondent, Philip J. Brumbaugh. Each count alleged violations of DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law) and 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter). On June 5, 1992, these charges were heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court.
The relevant facts as to each count were stipulated at hearing. Count one involved respondent's representation of Neva Bragg in a divorce proceeding. Upon retaining respondent in 1984 or 1985, Bragg initially paid him $150. Another $200 followed. For the next several years, respondent repeatedly told Bragg that the divorce was proceeding, when, in fact, respondent had never even completed service by publication on Bragg's husband. At one point, Mrs. Bragg allegedly had to cancel wedding arrangements when her divorce was not finalized by the date respondent had assured her it would be. Respondent's continued inaction prompted Bragg's grievance to relator and respondent's partial refund of fees to Bragg.
Count two arose from respondent's guardianship over Rowena Mishler, a resident of the Brethren's Home. Allegedly as a result of respondent's lengthy delay in recertifying Mishler's Medicaid entitlement, despite repeated pleas to do so, Mishler incurred a debt exceeding $4,000. Respondent eventually reimbursed the Brethren's Home for the full amount.
Respondent attributed his misconduct to alcoholism. Respondent has since received inpatient treatment and continues with outpatient therapy and support groups. Dr. Thomas Dubrava, who continues to counsel respondent, described respondent's prognosis as "very good," noting that respondent "has a good understanding of his disease and he has the tools to know what to do in order to live a sober lifestyle." Respondent's wife, minister and colleagues additionally testified to respondent's progress, personally and professionally, since he began treatment.
After reviewing the evidence and testimony before it, the panel found respondent guilty of violating DR 6-101(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6) as to each count. The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months, with the sanction to be suspended upon the conditions that respondent (1) return to Bragg the remaining $150 in fees which he owes and (2) complete a two-year probationary period to be monitored by relator. The board adopted the panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law. It also recommended that costs of the proceedings be charged to respondent.
John F. Marchal and Thomas Hanes, for relator.
David C. Greer, for respondent.
We concur in the findings and recommendations of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. The sanction is suspended on the conditions that respondent (1) repay the remaining $150 in legal fees advanced by Mrs. Bragg and (2) complete a two-year probationary period to be monitored by relator. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
SWEENEY, Acting C.J., HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.
MOYER, C.J., not participating.