The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 90 Ohio St.3d 138.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BRAUN.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Braun, 2000-Ohio-175.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension with six months of sanction
stayed—Handling a legal matter without proper preparation—Neglect of
an entrusted legal matter—Failing to seek lawful objectives of client—
Failing to carry out contract of employment for professional services—
Prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional
representation.
(No. 00-760—Submitted July 6, 2000—Decided September 20, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances of the
Supreme Court, No. 99-16.
__________________
{¶ 1} On April 12, 1999, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
five-count complaint charging respondent, Gary L. Braun of Warren, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0021431, with violating several Disciplinary Rules while
representing clients from 1996 through 1998. After relator filed a motion for
default, respondent filed a late answer. The matter was then referred to a panel of
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
(“board”).
{¶ 2} On the basis of stipulations and evidence at a hearing, the panel found
that in August 1996, Kenneth S. Senediak hired respondent and paid him $250 to
represent him in a wrongful discharge action. Respondent failed to file an action
in the appropriate state court before the statute of limitations had run. As a result,
Senediak filed a legal malpractice action against respondent, which was settled for
$9,000.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 3} The panel also found that in May 1998, Mark Landers retained
respondent to represent him in a request for review of the amount set forth in a child
support order. Because he attended his father-in-law’s funeral, respondent did not
appear for the continued hearing in the child support matter. Although Landers
was without counsel, the court proceeded to set a new support order, vacated a
previously entered order of companionship, and terminated his visitation rights
pending an investigation.
{¶ 4} In addition, the panel found that in July and September 1997, Doreen
Caudill gave respondent a total of $550 to file a bankruptcy petition on her behalf.
Thereafter Caudill was unable to contact respondent, and, in December 1997, one
of her creditors sent her a letter stating that her loan was in default and that it
intended to file suit against her. Caudill sent the letter to respondent, but he took
no action. In January 1998, the creditor obtained a judgment and proceeded to
attach Caudill’s wages. The panel found that a bankruptcy petition for Caudill was
never filed and that her wages were attached in the amount of $1,599.66.
{¶ 5} The relator withdrew two other counts of the complaint.
{¶ 6} The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct in the Senediak,
Landers, and Caudill matters violated DR 6-101(A)(2) (handling a legal matter
without proper preparation), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(1) (failing to seek the lawful objectives of a client), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to
carry out a contract of employment for professional services), and 7-101(A)(3)
(prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of a professional
representation).
{¶ 7} The panel noted in mitigation that during the period covered by these
matters, respondent was undergoing severe marital stress and suffered from clinical
depression. The panel recommended a one-year suspension with six months stayed.
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
2
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna M. Anelli,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Gary L. Braun, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 8} Having reviewed the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice
of law in Ohio for one year, with six months of that year stayed. Costs are taxed to
respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
3