The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 84 Ohio St.3d 1.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BROWN.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, 1998-Ohio-303.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Failing to comply with
orders of Supreme Court from prior disciplinary suspension—Continuing
to practice law while suspended.
(No. 98-399—Submitted July 8, 1998—Decided November 10, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-104.
__________________
{¶ 1} In May 1985, we suspended respondent, Paul Raymond Brown of
Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0037693, from the practice of law for
one year. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Brown (1985), 16 Ohio St.3d 29, 16 OBR 409,
476 N.E.2d 654. In August 1995, we fined respondent $340 and suspended him
from the practice of law for failure to comply with the continuing legal education
requirements of Gov.Bar R. X for the 1992-1993 reporting period. That order
required respondent to notify all of his clients of his suspension, to deliver to his
clients all of their papers and property that he might have in his possession, to
refund to his clients any unearned fees, to give notice of his disqualification to
opposing counsel in all his pending cases and to all courts and agencies where he
was involved in pending litigation, to accomplish all these actions by certified mail
where appropriate, to maintain a record of all these actions, and to file an affidavit
with the Clerk of this court and Disciplinary Counsel indicating that all of these
actions had been accomplished.
{¶ 2} In September 1995, respondent filed an affidavit with the Clerk of the
Supreme Court, representing that he had “complied with the order of the Court
within the case.” The affidavit was accompanied by twenty-one undated certified
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
mail receipts, indicating that these were the only notices required by the order. In
December 1995, we ordered that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law. In
re Report of the Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn. (Paul Raymond Brown) (1995),
74 Ohio St.3d 1487, 658 N.E.2d 305.
{¶ 3} However, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, investigated and
found that respondent failed to notify all of his clients of his suspension and failed
to accomplish any of the other actions required by our August 1995 order.
Moreover, during the period he was suspended from the practice of law, respondent
continued to represent seven clients in the common pleas court and ten clients in
the municipal court. In addition, for four of the five biennia from 1987 through
1997, respondent failed to register timely with the Clerk of the Supreme Court as
required by Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A).
{¶ 4} On December 9, 1996, relator filed a complaint charging that
respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to
the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely
reflects upon the attorney’s fitness to practice law), and 3-101(B) (practicing in a
jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of the regulations of the profession
in that jurisdiction). Relator also charged that respondent’s failure to file timely
Certificates of Registration was a violation of Gov.Bar R. VI(1) and (3). The matter
was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court (“board”).
{¶ 5} The panel received the stipulations of the parties and held a hearing
at which respondent submitted evidence that his failure to comply with the orders
of this court was a result of his partial dependence upon alcohol. Respondent also
submitted evidence that he had entered the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program
(“OLAP”) in July 1997 and is currently in compliance with his contract and in good
standing with OLAP. The panel found the facts as stipulated and concluded that
respondent had violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged and had engaged in the
2
January Term, 1998
unauthorized practice of law in violation of Gov.Bar R. VII. In view of
respondent’s attempts at rehabilitation, the panel recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for two years with the second year of the
suspension stayed. The board accepted the findings and conclusions of the panel,
but due to respondent’s prior disciplinary suspension and his continued practice
while suspended, recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law. It further recommended that evidence of OLAP compliance be a
condition to his reinstatement to the practice of law.
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, Kevin L. Williams and Lori J.
Brown, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
James J. Chester, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} We adopt the findings of the board and its conclusions that respondent
violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged. Respondent is hereby indefinitely
suspended from the practice of law. A condition of respondent’s possible
reinstatement will be evidence of compliance with his contract with OLAP. Costs
are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., would suspend respondent for
two years with one year stayed.
__________________
3