Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted a consent-to-discipline agreement finding that Bruce Martin Broyles violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.9 by representing foreclosure defendants after previously representing the opposing lender in the same matter. The court imposed a public reprimand and taxed costs to Broyles.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Broyles violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.9 by representing the Apontes in the same foreclosure matter in which he had previously represented NY Mellon, where the Apontes' interests were materially adverse to NY Mellon's interests and NY Mellon did not give informed consent.
- Whether the stipulated misconduct warranted a public reprimand.
Holdings
- A lawyer violates Prof.Cond.R. 1.9 by representing a new client in the same matter when the new client's interests are materially adverse to those of a former client, absent the former client's informed consent. Broyles violated that rule by representing the Apontes against NY Mellon in the same foreclosure action.
- A public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for Broyles's violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.9.
Key quotations
“We agree that Broyles violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.9 and, as stated in the parties’ agreement and as indicated by the cited precedent, that this conduct warrants a public reprimand.” (¶ 6)
“Accordingly, Bruce Martin Broyles is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs are taxed to Broyles. Judgment accordingly.” (¶ 7)
Factual background
Broyles represented The Bank of New York Mellon at a default hearing in a foreclosure case and obtained a judgment against Felix and Barbara Aponte. About nine months later, he was retained by the Apontes to defend them in that same foreclosure action. He filed a motion for relief from judgment and other pleadings seeking to vacate the default judgment he had previously obtained, without NY Mellon's informed consent to the adverse representation.
Procedural history
Disciplinary counsel charged Broyles with professional misconduct after he represented a former foreclosure client and later represented the opposing homeowners in the same foreclosure matter without the former client's informed consent. Broyles stipulated to the facts and to a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.9. The panel and Board of Professional Conduct recommended adoption of the consent-to-discipline agreement and a public reprimand, which the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted.