# Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Makridis

> Ohio Supreme Court · November 6, 1996 · 77 Ohio St. 3d 73

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11150045

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 6, 1996
- **Citations:** 77 Ohio St. 3d 73; 1996 Ohio 351
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11150045

## Opinion text

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 77 Ohio St.3d 73.]

TRUMBULL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MAKRIDIS.
[Cite as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Makridis, 1996-Ohio-351.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Directly communicating with
an adverse party.
(No. 96-1428—Submitted September 10, 1996—Decided November 6, 1996.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-78.
__________________
{¶ 1} On October 10, 1995, the Trumbull County Bar Association
(“relator”) filed a complaint charging Irene Makridis of Warren, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0016760 (“respondent”), with violating DR 7-104(A)(1)(directly
communicating with an adverse party).
{¶ 2} Respondent filed an answer and on March 7, 1996 relator and
respondent filed an agreed stipulation of facts. Based on the complaint, answer and
stipulation, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court (“board”) found that in October 1993 the respondent had filed
a personal injury action on behalf of Jeffrey Egbert to recover damages for personal
injury from Jacki L. Hicks. On August 15, 1994, three days before the date of trial,
Egbert, in respondent’s presence and at her suggestion, made a telephone call to
Hicks to inform Hicks of his anticipated testimony at the trial. During the telephone
call, Egbert handed the telephone to respondent, who, forgetting that Hicks was
represented by counsel, began to discuss Egbert’s anticipated testimony with her.
Realizing that her conduct was prohibited by the Code of Professional
Responsibility, respondent withdrew as counsel for Egbert. Respondent stipulated
that she had violated DR 7-104(A)(1). The panel recommended that respondent be
publicly reprimanded.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 3} The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
penalty recommended by the panel.
__________________
David G. Lake and Anthony G. Rossi III, for relator.
Robert L. York, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 4} We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, and we hereby
publicly reprimand the respondent. Costs taxed to the respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and STRATTON, JJ., concur.
MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., dissent.
__________________
COOK, J., dissenting.
{¶ 5} I would impose the sanction agreed to by respondent and relator -- a
suspension from the practice of law for one year with the suspension stayed on the
condition that respondent satisfactorily complete a two-year monitored probation
period.
MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
__________________

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11150045. Public record. Not legal advice.