The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 86 Ohio St.3d 549.]
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. VITULLO.
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vitullo, 1999-Ohio-121.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Pattern of misconduct and
misappropriation of client funds—Failing to cooperate in disciplinary
investigation—Failing to register with Clerk of Supreme Court of Ohio—
Failing to notify Attorney Registration Office of current residence and office
addresses.
(No. 99-806—Submitted June 9, 1999—Decided September 8, 1999.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-29.
__________________
{¶ 1} In December 1996, John and Mary Ann Pietrzak retained respondent,
John W. Vitullo of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0046683, to
represent their son Mark, who was injured while operating a motor vehicle owned
by his employer, John Brown. Respondent represented Brown in another matter.
Both respondent and Brown had informed Mrs. Pietrzak that respondent had to
handle their case or “there would be no case.” Before the Pietrzaks retained
respondent, respondent discussed the case with them and Brown, although the
potential existed that pursuit of the claim for Mark Pietrzak could have included an
action against Brown. After the Pietrzaks retained respondent, he failed to respond
to the Pietrzaks’ attempts to contact him about the status of their son’s claim, and
the Pietrzaks discharged respondent and retained another attorney. Respondent
ignored the new attorney’s requests to return the Pietrzaks’ file.
{¶ 2} In February 1994, Lynell Davis retained respondent to represent her
in a personal injury matter. Under his employment contract, respondent agreed to
retain costs of medical treatments for Davis and remit them to her medical
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
providers. Respondent and Davis later executed a lien agreement under which
respondent was to pay a $1,817.50 medical bill to Dr. Roger Hart. Following a
settlement of Davis’s personal injury claim, respondent withheld money to pay Dr.
Hart, but never paid him.
{¶ 3} In June 1994, Ted Turner retained respondent to represent him in a
domestic relations matter. When Turner became dissatisfied with respondent’s
representation, he discharged him and requested that respondent return his records.
Respondent did not return the records.
{¶ 4} David Griffin retained respondent to represent him in a domestic
violence matter. Before the hearing, respondent did not conduct any discovery and
did not adequately prepare for trial. Because of respondent’s neglect, Griffin was
convicted, and respondent failed to attend his sentencing hearing.
{¶ 5} On August 25, 1998, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed
an amended complaint charging respondent with violating several Disciplinary
Rules, failing to maintain his status as an attorney in good standing, and failing to
properly notify the Attorney Registration Office of his correct address. After
respondent failed to file an answer, the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”)
on relator’s motion for default judgment.
{¶ 6} The panel found the facts as previously set forth and concluded that
respondent’s conduct in the Pietrzak matter violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting
an entrusted legal matter), 7-104(A)(2) (giving advice to an unrepresented person,
other than advice to secure counsel, if person’s interests have a reasonable
possibility of being in conflict with client’s interests), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing upon
request to promptly deliver property to client which client is entitled to receive).
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct in the Davis matter violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct including dishonesty and deceit), 1-102(A)(6)
(engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 7-
2
January Term, 1999
101(A)(2) (failing to carry out an employment contract), 7-101(A)(3) (damaging a
client during course of professional relationship), and 9-102(B)(4). The panel
concluded that respondent’s conduct in the Turner matter violated DR 9-102(B)(4)
and that his conduct in the Griffin matter violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3).
The panel further concluded that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) (failing
to register) and VI(1)(D) (failing to notify Attorney Registration Office of current
residence and office addresses).
{¶ 7} The panel found no mitigating evidence, instead noting that
respondent had failed to cooperate with the investigation and lied to an investigator
about his registration status. The panel recommended that respondent be
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. The board adopted the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________
Michael M. Courtney and Thomas E. Kocovsky, for relator.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 8} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in
Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
COOK, J., dissents.
__________________
COOK, J., dissenting.
{¶ 9} Given respondent’s pattern of misconduct and misappropriation of
client funds and property, and the lack of mitigating evidence, I would permanently
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
disbar respondent from the practice of law in Ohio.
__________________
4