 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dayton Bar Association v. Buren.12/30/1998
Submitted September 29, 1998
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Buren (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law - Misconduct - Disbarrment - Engaging in continuing course of deceit, misrepresentation, and neglect of duty to clients and bankruptcy court.
In December 1997, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a seven-count amended complaint charging respondent, Bruce A. Buren of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0018235, with violating numerous Disciplinary Rules. After personal service of the amended complaint and numerous attempts to contact Buren failed, service was made on the Clerk of the Supreme Court as the agent for Buren in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). When Buren did not answer or otherwise plead to the amended complaint, relator filed a motion for default judgment under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).
Based on the amended complaint and the affidavits and deposition attached to relator's motion for default judgment, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") made the following findings of fact and Conclusions of law.
In January 1992, Buren filed a bankruptcy petition on behalf of Unified Concepts, Inc. ("Unified"). Under Section 330, Title 11, U.S.Code, Buren was required to fully disclose to the bankruptcy court and all creditors of Unified the amount of attorney fees that had been paid in connection with the bankruptcy proceeding. In violation of the foregoing statute, Buren disclosed to the bankruptcy court that he had been paid $1,500 in attorney fees, although he had actually been paid $6,000 by February 1992.
Shortly after filing the bankruptcy petition for Unified, Buren advised the primary shareholder of Unified that Unified's business could be continued outside bankruptcy by incorporating a new business named Silkolor, Inc. ("Silkolor"). Buren represented Unified's shareholders in incorporating Silkolor and recommended that Silkolor purchase Unified's assets out of bankruptcy under a secured party sale from Society Bank after Unified surrendered the assets to the bank. Society Bank refused to participate in the proposed sale.
Silkolor operated its business with the same equipment and customers as Unified, generating revenues that were diverted from Unified's bankruptcy proceeding. There was no evidence that Silkolor operated the business with either the consent of Unified's creditors or the approval of the bankruptcy court. A portion of Silkolor's revenues was used to pay Buren for legal services he provided to Silkolor and Unified both before and after the bankruptcy filing.
The bankruptcy trustee in Unified's case discovered the improprieties and filed an adversary proceeding against Buren in the bankruptcy court. The trustee obtained a default judgment against Buren for over $16,000 in attorney fees taken from Unified without disclosure or bankruptcy court approval.
The panel concluded that Buren's actions relating to the bankruptcy case violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of Justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in any other conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law), 2-106(A) (entering into an agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 7-102(A)(3) (concealing or knowingly failing to disclose that which he is required by law to reveal), 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of law or fact), 7-102(A)(7) (counseling or assisting his client in conduct that the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent), and 7-102(A)(8) (knowingly enga
Page 1 2 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|