The Ohio Supreme Court today ordered six-month suspensions for two attorneys in unrelated cases.

Chillicothe Attorney’s Third Case of Misconduct
The Ohio Supreme Court has disciplined Edward R. Bunstine of Chillicothe twice since 2012 for engaging in professional misconduct, and his law license has been suspended since August 2013. The latest charge against Bunstine before the court is that he mishandled a client’s criminal defense and was uncooperative in the disciplinary investigation. The Board of Professional Conduct recommended to the court that Bunstine’s law license be suspended indefinitely with credit for time served under the 2013 suspension. In today’s per curiam decision, the court is suspending the license for six months.

Bunstine was contacted by the daughter of a former divorce case client after the man was arrested in December 2011. Bunstine met with Gary Freeland in jail several times and the daughter gave him $10,000 to represent her father in the criminal case. Bunstine claims he never represented Freeland, and admitted only to being the daughter’s attorney when pressed by the trial judge about taking the money. Despite conflicting testimony from the daughter about whether Bunstine was hired as her father’s lawyer, the board found the jailed father had a reasonable expectation that an attorney-client relationship existed by implication. With that relationship established, the board found Bunstine failed to provide competent representation and knowingly made false statements to the judge during Freeland’s trial.

In the 5-2 decision, the court decided there were enough contradictions in the daughter’s testimony to cast doubt on the attorney-client relationship.

In the 5-2 decision, the court decided there were enough contradictions in the daughter’s testimony to cast doubt on the attorney-client relationship.

In the 5-2 decision, the court decided there were enough contradictions in the daughter’s testimony to cast doubt on the attorney-client relationship. The court also noted, “Nor are we convinced that Bunstine’s statements to the judge about his involvement in the Freeland matter were knowingly false.” Because of those reasons, the court dismissed count one of the complaint that Bunstine failed to provide competent representation to a client and that he engaged in fraud. However, the court agreed with the board on the second count that Bunstine didn’t cooperate with the disciplinary investigation, including ignoring several letters of inquiry. With his prior disciplinary offenses, his failure to cooperate, and “his refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct,” the court imposed a six-month suspension with no credit for the time he’s served under the 2013 suspension.

The court’s majority was Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Terrence O’Donnell, Sharon L. Kennedy, and Judith L. French. Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger dissented and would have imposed an indefinite suspension. Justice William M. O’Neill also dissented but would have imposed a public reprimand.

2014-1392. Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-3729.

View oral argument video of this case.

Kent Attorney Suspended for Mishandling Client Money
Charles R. Quinn of Kent agreed to represent Christopher Hoffman and appeal his murder conviction. The appeals court vacated Hoffman’s sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing, which reduced Hoffman’s sentence from 20 years to life in prison to 15 years to life. Quinn filed another appeal on Hoffman’s behalf, but he missed the deadline to file a brief and the appeal was dismissed. He received more than $8,000 to handle Hoffman’s appeal.

When the Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigated a grievance Hoffman filed, Quinn was slow to respond to repeated follow-up requests for information, including proof of his claim he refunded the client’s money after the court ruled him indigent. The Board of Professional Conduct found that Quinn engaged in multiple offenses, including failing to deposit the money he received into a client trust account. Because Quinn has not had any previous disciplinary problems, he eventually repaid Hoffman, and he cooperated in the disciplinary process after the formal complaint was filed, the board recommended a six-month suspension, all stayed, and that he submit to one year of monitored probation with a focus on law-office management and rules governing client trust accounts.

The Supreme Court justices acknowledged in the 5-2 per curiam opinion that while there were mitigating factors in the case, “the totality of Quinn’s conduct” warranted an actual suspension. The court has ordered Quinn’s license suspended for six months with monitored probation for a year if he’s reinstated.

The court’s majority included Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Terrence O’Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Sharon L. Kennedy, and Judith L. French. Justices Paul E. Pfeifer and William M. O’Neill dissented and would have stayed the six-month suspension.

2014-2159. Disciplinary Counsel v. Quinn, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-3687.

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, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.