|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
Court Disbars Strongsville Lawyer, Suspends Dayton Attorney
The Supreme Court of Ohio permanently disbarred Strongsville attorney Arthur Ray Frazier and suspended the license of attorney Nicholas R. Gerren of Dayton in separate disciplinary actions announced today.
2006-0124. Disciplinary Counsel v. Frazier, 2006-Ohio-4481.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 03-069. Arthur Ray Frazier, Attorney Registration No. 0063635, is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-4481.pdf
(Sept. 13, 2006) The Supreme Court of Ohio today permanently revoked the law license of Strongsville attorney Arthur Ray Frazier based on 13 counts of misconduct, including failure to refund thousands of dollars owed to clients, engaging in the practice of law with a suspended license, practicing law outside of Ohio without a license, and failing to properly represent clients.
Frazier, who was admitted to the bar in 1994, has been under an indefinite suspension since July 2002 for prior acts of professional misconduct including multiple instances of making personal use of entrusted client funds.
In a new complaint resulting in today's disciplinary action, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline found that Frazier ignored the terms of his license suspension by failing to notify existing clients that he could no longer represent them, refund unearned legal fees or return case files. The board found that in many cases Frazier simply ceased all communication with a client without explanation, and in some cases continued to engage in the practice of law.
The board's findings also included dozens of disciplinary rule violations arising from Frazier's representation, or lack there of, of more than 11 clients prior to his 2002 suspension. In the case of Tina Tracy, Frazier accepted $5,000 in January 2002 through a nonlawyer who regularly referred potential clients to him, and did nothing in the case before his indefinite suspension took effect in July 2002. Tracy asked Frazier to return the $5,000 fee and Frazier later arranged for Tracy to receive a $1,400 cashier's check and a money order for $800 where the name of a previous payee had been scratched off and Tracy's name had been inserted. Tracy did not cash the money order and Frazier later paid Tracy another $2,800.
In another case, the board found that Frazier accepted $5,000 from Karen Finney to represent her son Alan Vincent who was under investigation by Michigan police. Frazier accepted the fee without informing Finney that he was not licensed to practice law in Michigan. When Frazier attempted to represent Vincent at his arraignment in Michigan, he was not permitted to speak on his client's behalf. When Finney called to fire Frazier, Frazier agreed to return unearned fees, but had not returned any part of the fee at the time of the board's hearing in October 2005.
In recommending a sanction, the board considered the mitigating fact that Frazier is said to suffer from a mental disability and was diagnosed with “adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood” after the previous charges of professional misconduct were filed against him in 2002. His treatment ended in early 2005. The board also observed that Frazier expressed regret and admitted he had tried to take on too much.
The board, however, found that the aggravating factors in Frazier's case far outweighed the mitigating factors. The board found that Frazier had a significant history of professional misconduct, had committed a pattern of offenses, had failed to cooperate during the disciplinary process, and had inflicted serious harm on numerous clients. The board also observed that Frazier had made little or no restitution to most clients and knowingly engaged in the practice of law while his license was under suspension.
In today's unanimous per curiam decision, the Court adopted the board's findings and its recommendation that Frazier be permanently disbarred. In its opinion, the Court said it took no assurances from Frazier that he has learned from his mistakes and will do better if given another chance.
“As relator argues ‘(t)he normal penalty for continuing to practice law while under suspension is disbarment,” the Court held. “Moreover, accepting legal fees and then failing to carry out the contract for employment is tantamount to theft of client funds and is also cause for disbarment, particularly when coupled with neglect, a history of misconduct and other disciplinary infractions.”
Contacts
Brian E. Shinn, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Arthur Ray Frazier, pro se: No telephone number was provided for Mr. Frazier.
2006-0442. Dayton Bar Assn. v. Gerren, 2006-Ohio-4482.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 05-048. Nicholas L. Gerren Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0032341, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 18 months, with six months stayed on conditions.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-4482.pdf
(Sept. 13, 2006) In a unanimous per curiam decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended the law license of Dayton attorney Nicholas L. Gerren Jr. for 18 months, with the last six months of that term stayed, for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court adopted findings by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that Gerren had committed misconduct in connection with four counts.
In the first count, the board found that Gerren agreed to administer the estate of John W. Koen, applying for authority to act in that capacity on April 7, 1997. While the probate court approved the required sale of a family home included in the estate in March 1999, Gerren did not begin trying to sell the property until April 2000. Gerren failed to meet deadlines in filing required paperwork throughout the probate process, and ultimately withdrew from representation of the estate in August 2004. Volunteer lawyers subsequently completed the administration of the estate. The board found that Gerren's conduct violated state disciplinary rules that prohibit neglect of entrusted legal matters, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and intentionally failing to carry out a contract for professional services.
In a second case, the board found that Gerren was paid $7,500 to represent Brian Wade, who was pursuing a wrongful termination of employment claim, but upon determining that Wade's claim had no merit, Gerren failed to inform Wade of his conclusion. The statute of limitation elapsed on Wade's claim before he was able to retain new counsel.
In a third count, the board determined that Gerren violated state rules that required him to inform Wade and other clients that he lacked professional liability insurance.
A fourth count arose from Gerren's representation of Wade and his wife in a personal bankruptcy action. Gerren failed to disclose to the court that he was in possession of a $7,500 retainer fee received from Wade in his separate wrongful termination case, and subsequently failed to amend filings in that court to reflect that a refund of this fee was made to Wade. The board found Gerren's conduct caused harm to his clients.
In recommending a sanction for Gerren, the board considered a prior six-month suspension imposed against his license in August 2004 and the multiple offenses included in the current complaint. The Court's decision noted that “(r)espondent blatantly neglected the Koen estate, disregarded the statue of limitations in Wade's wrongful-termination case, failed to alert Wade and other clients that he has no malpractice coverage, and did not disclose the fee in his possession in the Wade bankruptcy.” The Court noted the mitigating facts that Gerren had not acted dishonestly or with selfish motive, cooperated during disciplinary proceedings and expressed deep regret for the harm he caused. Gerren explained his neglect by noting that in 2003 he was going through a divorce, his father was seriously ill and later died, and that he had sought professional help for depression. Gerren also blamed his misconduct on ineffective office management and overwhelming professional and personal responsibilities.
The Court adopted the board's recommendation of an 18-month suspension with the last six months stayed, but added that Gerren must make restitution to Wade of $20,000 plus interest within the first 12 months of his suspension as a condition for staying the last six months, unless the debt is discharged in bankruptcy in the interim. As additional conditions for future reinstatement, the Court required Gerren to continue mental health treatment and complete six credit hours of continuing legal education in law-office management.
Contacts
Leonard Lush, 937.223.8171, for the
Dayton Bar Association.
Nicholas L. Gerren Jr., pro se: 937.312.0894.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."