Cleveland Attorneys Disbarred, Suspended by Ohio Supreme Court

n separate disciplinary actions announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio permanently disbarred Lakewood attorney Bryan S. Freeman and suspended the license of Cleveland attorney Vincent Stafford.

2010-1479. Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Freeman, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1483.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 09-070. Brian S. Freeman, Attorney Registration No. 0070637, is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.
O'Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-Ohio-1483.pdf

(April 5, 2011) The Supreme Court of Ohio today permanently revoked the license of Lakewood attorney Bryan S. Freeman based on an 18-count complaint involving more than 50 violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rules of Professional Conduct in his dealings with eight different clients.

The Court adopted findings by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that, among numerous acts of misconduct, Freeman neglected multiple legal matters entrusted to him, failed to make required court filings and appearances to the detriment of his clients, failed to return calls from clients or keep them reasonably informed about the status of their cases, failed to promptly forward funds and legal documents to which his clients were entitled, and in several cases misappropriated proceeds of personal injury lawsuit settlements that he held in trust for clients.

In setting the appropriate sanction for Freeman’s misconduct as disbarment, the Court cited the aggravating factors that he engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, caused harm to vulnerable clients, failed to make restitution or acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct and failed to cooperate with disciplinary authorities throughout the investigation and prosecution of the ethics complaint brought against him.

Contacts
Dreama Anderson, 330.630.9900, for the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association.

Bryan Freeman, pro se, No current telephone contact information available.

2010-1601. Disciplinary Counsel v. Stafford, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1484.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 08-081. Vincent Stafford, Attorney Registration No. 0059846, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 18 months, with six months stayed on condition.
O'Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-Ohio-1484.pdf

(April 5, 2011) In a 7-0 decision announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio suspended the law license of Cleveland attorney Vincent Stafford for 18 months, with the final 6 months stayed, for professional misconduct arising from his delay and obstruction of the discovery process in a divorce action and lack of candor while representing a different client in a legal malpractice case.

The Court adopted findings by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that in the divorce action, Stafford’s failure to comply with repeated discovery requests from the opposing party over a period of many months and his evasive tactics and testimony regarding the information sought through discovery violated the disciplinary rules that prohibit an attorney from unlawfully obstructing another party’s access to evidence, knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger agreed with the disciplinary board’s finding that Stafford’s testimony under cross-examination by opposing counsel regarding what discovery documents had been provided and when “clearly demonstrated that he was intentionally attempting to ‘obfuscate and hinder the truth-seeking process.’”

“We have repeatedly held that the practice of law is ‘a learned profession grounded on integrity, respectability, and candor ...’” wrote Justice Lanzinger. “It is clear that these attributes were missing from respondent’s conduct: How difficult can it be to show that you sent discovery responses to opposing counsel? For more than a year, respondent confounded three attorneys in their search for discovery documents. His evasive and obstreperous conduct alone is clear and convincing evidence that he violated the rules of professional conduct. Discovery is a critical part of the litigation process, and it often takes up a majority of the time that lawyers spend in litigating a case. ... Respondent’s lack of diligence in responding to requests for discovery is the equivalent of obstructing discovery. Therefore, as determined by the board, there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent engaged in evasive conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

Contacts
Jonathan E. Coughlan, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

George S. Coakley, 216.687.1311, for Vincent Stafford.