Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 79 Ohio St.3d 392.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BANCSI.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi, 1997-Ohio-378.]

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension with six months of the

suspension stayed—Continuing to practice law while license is under

suspension.

(No. 97-436—Submitted May 7, 1997—Decided September 24, 1997.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-50.

__________________

{¶ 1} On August 11, 1995, we suspended respondent, Joseph Bancsi of

Rocky River, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0025450, from the practice of law

for his failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements during the

1992/1993 reporting period, and also imposed a $100 sanction fee for

noncompliance. Although respondent completed more than the twenty-four hours

of continuing legal education during that period, he failed to obtain the required

one-half hour of substance abuse education. The suspension was also imposed for

his failure to pay a court-ordered sanction of $100 for noncompliance during an

earlier period. On unrelated matters, we have previously reprimanded respondent.

Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Bancsi (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 525, 651 N.E.2d 949.

{¶ 2} Our order suspending respondent required among other things that he

immediately cease the practice of law and notify all clients, opposing counsel, and

judges of his disqualification by certified mail. Because he had not informed the

Supreme Court of his change of address, respondent did not receive the order

suspending him until September 20, 1995.

{¶ 3} Respondent paid the two outstanding monetary sanctions on

September 21, 1995, immediately applied to take the uncompleted substance-abuse

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

education on October 4, 1995, and on September 28, 1995 filed a motion to vacate

the order of suspension. Respondent filed a motion for reinstatement on October

5, 1995, and was reinstated to the practice of law on November 3, 1995. In re

Report of Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn., Bancsi, Respondent (1995), 74 Ohio

St.3d 1449, 656 N.E.2d 691.

{¶ 4} On June 17, 1996, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint

charging respondent with the violation of several Disciplinary Rules for continuing

to practice law during the period he was under suspension. A panel of the Board

of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”)

heard this matter on December 20, 1996.

{¶ 5} The panel found that although respondent did not take on any new

clients after he discovered that he had been suspended, he did serve existing clients

on a limited basis between September 20 and October 27, 1995 to protect their

interests. Specifically, on September 28 and October 6, he appeared in pre-hearing

settlement conferences for one of his clients. On October 2, he filed an application

for an extension of time to file assignments of error on appeal for a second client,

and on October 31, he entered into a settlement agreement in that case. On October

11, he filed a pretrial statement for a third client, and on October 27, he filed a

notice of withdrawal in that case. On October 18, he appeared at a pretrial

conference for a fourth client and withdrew from the case on October 27. On

October 23, he signed a settlement agreement in a domestic relations case for a fifth

client. At the time of these actions, respondent alleges that he anticipated that his

reinstatement would take place within two weeks at the most.

{¶ 6} After his suspension, but prior to receiving notice of it, respondent on

behalf of various clients filed notices of appeal on August 11, 1995, and September

5, 1995, entered an appearance in common pleas court on August 28, 1995, and

filed motions in another case in common pleas court on September 1, 1995.

2

January Term, 1997

{¶ 7} Although respondent was required by the order to notify clients,

opposing counsel, and judges of his suspension by certified mail, respondent

instead gave personal notice of the order by hand-delivering letters between

October 20 and October 27, 1995.

{¶ 8} The panel concluded that respondent had willfully failed to comply

with an order of the Supreme Court and, by practicing law during the term of his

suspension, violated DR 3-101(B) (practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so

violates the regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction). The panel

recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year

with six months of the suspension stayed on the condition of good behavior. The

board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.

__________________

Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant

Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Niki Z. Schwartz and Michelle Heyer, for respondent.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 9} We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. An attorney who

continues to practice law while his license is under suspension violates DR 3-

101(B). Akron Bar Assn. v. Thorpe (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 174, 532 N.E.2d 752.

As we said in Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 433, 436, 674

N.E.2d 1371, 1373, “The normal penalty for continuing to practice law while under

suspension is disbarment.”

{¶ 10} However, in view of the specific facts of this case, including

respondent’s prompt attempt to cure the deficiency with respect to continuing legal

education which resulted in his suspension, his immediate payment of the

outstanding fines, the short duration of the suspension, and the recommendation of

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

the panel, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one

year with six months of the suspension stayed. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and

LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

__________________

4