The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 82 Ohio St.3d 57.]
LAKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. VALA.
[Cite as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vala, 1998-Ohio-591.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension stayed with conditions—
Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation.
(No. 97-2673—Submitted February 18, 1998—Decided May 20, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-77.
__________________
{¶ 1} On October 17, 1995, relator, Lake County Bar Association, wrote to
respondent, Joseph S. Vala of Mentor, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0038112,
asking him to respond within ten days to a grievance filed by Frank Lanning, a
former client of respondent. When a representative of relator followed up with a
telephone call to respondent on October 30, 1995, respondent indicated that he
would reply in writing to the Lanning grievance. However, respondent never
replied. On November 7, 1995, relator wrote to respondent, requesting information
with respect to a grievance filed by his former client, Angel Townsend. On
December 5, 1995, relator’s representative telephoned respondent about the
Townsend grievance. Although respondent said that he would reply by December
8, 1995, he failed to contact relator about the matter. On July 1, 1996, relator wrote
to respondent about a grievance filed by his former client, Judy Fox, noting that
this was the third grievance filed against respondent. Respondent did not reply to
relator’s inquiry until August 7, 1996. On October 10, 1996, relator wrote to
respondent in an attempt to investigate a grievance filed by Jean M. Forest, former
wife of respondent’s client Patrick Lynch. Respondent did not answer.
{¶ 2} On November 18, 1996, relator filed an amended complaint, charging
respondent with the violation of various Disciplinary Rules in the Lanning,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Townsend, and Fox matters, and further charging that respondent failed to
cooperate with relator’s investigation in violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no
attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in disciplinary investigation or
hearing). In an answer filed on March 13, 1997, respondent admitted most of the
operative facts, but denied that they constituted disciplinary violations.
{¶ 3} On April 28, 1997, relator wrote to respondent about a grievance filed
by Jamie Semosky, but respondent did not reply.
{¶ 4} On July 7, 1997, relator filed a second amended complaint, adding
counts based on grievances filed by Semosky and Forest.
{¶ 5} The parties entered into stipulations, which were submitted to a panel
of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
(“board”). Both relator and respondent also filed trial briefs. Respondent’s brief
was accompanied by letters from one of respondent’s employees, several former
clients, a bailiff, and a former classmate, attesting to respondent’s courtesy,
integrity, and ability.
{¶ 6} After a hearing, the panel found that relator failed to prove any
disciplinary violations by clear and convincing evidence, but did prove that
respondent failed to cooperate with relator’s investigation of the grievances, and
concluded that respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). The panel heard in
mitigation that respondent’s parents both died in 1993 and that shortly thereafter he
and another attorney bought the practice of Hyatt Legal Services in Lake County.
The other attorney then became seriously ill and, during his absence, respondent
was overwhelmed with the caseload involving clients he had not previously
represented. As a result, respondent was dilatory in many matters, including giving
attention to the grievances filed against him. The panel recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year with the entire year
stayed on condition that he be placed on probation and be monitored by relator.
2
January Term, 1998
The board accepted the findings and conclusions of the panel, but recommended
that respondent receive a public reprimand.
__________________
Karen Sheppert-Johnson, John J. Hurley, Jr., and Michael P. Brown, for
relator.
Joseph F. Vala, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 7} We accept the findings and conclusions of the board. However, we
give more weight than the board did to respondent’s continued disregard of relator’s
investigation, a disregard which ill served the profession, this court, and the
respondent himself. The requirement to cooperate in disciplinary investigations is
rooted in the self-governing nature of the legal profession. As a corollary, each
lawyer has a duty to participate in the regulation of the profession, even when he
himself is the subject of investigation. Respondent’s failure to cooperate violated
that duty and reflects poorly on the profession.
{¶ 8} On a very practical level, respondent’s failure to cooperate in this
disciplinary investigation required this court to expend time and money in needless
activity. Relator might not have filed this complaint had respondent been
forthcoming when first advised of the grievances. Except for a minimal response
consisting of a belated letter directed to only one of several grievances, respondent
was moved to action only after relator filed its amended complaint. Respondent’s
delay required us to convene both the panel and the board, conduct a formal
hearing, and ultimately to assemble to review the matter.
{¶ 9} Respondent finally appreciated the situation when, at the hearing
before the panel, he stated:
“I should have responded to the first complaint and others that came in.
Some of the allegations made here aren’t that serious. Maybe they wouldn’t have
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
been that serious if I had responded to the Bar, and that may be true. * * * It is
serious anytime someone calls my professional pride and integrity into question.
Those are the biggest things I have got.”
{¶ 10} Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for
one year with the entire year stayed, provided that during that year he is on
probation and subject to the monitoring of relator. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ.,
concur.
DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., dissent.
__________________
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., dissenting.
{¶ 11} Under the circumstances of this case, a public reprimand is the
appropriate sanction.
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
__________________
4