Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed professional-misconduct findings against Arthur Ray Frazier, who was already under indefinite suspension. The court upheld findings involving neglect of client matters, misuse or failure to return client funds, unauthorized practice while suspended, and noncooperation with disciplinary proceedings. It ordered Frazier permanently disbarred and taxed costs to him.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the board's findings of professional misconduct should be adopted.
- Whether respondent's mental-health condition warranted mitigating the sanction.
- Whether permanent disbarment was the appropriate sanction for respondent's repeated misconduct, including practicing law while suspended and failing to safeguard or return client funds.
Holdings
- The court adopted the board's 84 findings of professional misconduct, which respondent did not contest.
- Respondent's adjustment disorder was not mitigating because the evidence did not show that it contributed to or caused the misconduct.
- Permanent disbarment was the appropriate sanction for respondent's repeated and aggravated professional misconduct.
Key quotations
“The normal penalty for continuing to practice law while under suspension is disbarment.” (¶ 54)
“Respondent is therefore permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.” (¶ 55)
Factual background
Frazier, previously indefinitely suspended for professional misconduct involving entrusted client funds, failed to maintain a client trust account and neglected or mishandled numerous client matters. He failed to notify clients of his suspension, return client files, and refund unearned fees, and he continued to perform legal work for clients while suspended, including preparing and filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. He also failed to cooperate fully with the disciplinary process, made little restitution, and had a significant prior disciplinary history.
Procedural history
Respondent had previously been indefinitely suspended for misusing entrusted client funds and was later found in contempt for failing to comply with suspension-related obligations. In this proceeding, the disciplinary panel and board found 84 findings of misconduct involving client neglect, failure to return unearned fees, improper handling of client funds, unauthorized practice while suspended, and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process. The board recommended permanent disbarment, which the court adopted.