No Attorney-Client Relationship But Attorney Suspended For Failure To Cooperate
From the web page of the Ohio Supreme Court
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. 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.
(Mike Frisch)