Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed allegations that Edward Royal Bunstine engaged in misconduct arising from an alleged attorney-client relationship because the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish the relationship or related violations. The court found that Bunstine failed to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation and imposed a six-month suspension with no credit for time served under a prior suspension.

Holdings

1. The evidence did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that an attorney-client relationship arose between Bunstine and Freeland or that Bunstine knowingly made false statements concerning his role in Freeland's case; Count One was dismissed in its entirety.
2. An attorney may not refuse to respond to disciplinary counsel's subsequent inquiries merely because the initial inquiry did not identify a specific rule violation or because the attorney considers the requested information irrelevant; Bunstine violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and former Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
3. A six-month suspension from the practice of law, with no credit for time served under the prior suspension imposed in Bunstine II, was appropriate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence established that an attorney-client relationship arose between Bunstine and Freeland and that Bunstine committed the alleged underlying professional-conduct violations.
2. Whether Bunstine violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and former Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to respond to subsequent requests for information during a disciplinary investigation.
3. What sanction was appropriate for Bunstine's established misconduct in light of his prior disciplinary offenses and aggravating factors.

Disposition

other