attorney indefinitely suspended for failure to seek the lawful objectives of her client, failure to timely refund an unearned retainer, and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation
How later courts described this case
- attorney indefinitely suspended for failure to seek the lawful objectives of her client, failure to timely refund an unearned retainer, and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 86 Ohio St.3d 627.]
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. VERBISKI.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Verbiski, 1999-Ohio-244.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Violating a Disciplinary
Rule—Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—
Failing to seek lawful objectives of client—Failing to promptly pay, upon
request, funds in possession that client is entitled to receive—Failing to
cooperate in disciplinary investigation—Failing to comply with continuing
legal education requirements.
(No. 99-835—Submitted July 28, 1999—Decided September 22, 1999.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-54.
__________________
{¶ 1} In October 1994, Simon Pyasik paid respondent, Laura Verbiski of
North Olmsted, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0034338, $1,100, including a
retainer of $950, to represent him in a domestic relations matter. Respondent filed
a complaint for divorce on behalf of Pyasik in the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. Despite being notified by the court
that the case would be dismissed for want of prosecution if service was not
perfected by May 1995, respondent never perfected service, and the court dismissed
the case and assessed costs against Pyasik. On April 17, 1996, after Pyasik
expressed dissatisfaction to respondent about her representation, respondent agreed
that she would make “demonstrable progress toward[s] the resolution of [Pyasik’s]
marital problem or return the $950.00 retainer fee.” Respondent did not refund any
money to Pyasik.
{¶ 2} Pyasik filed a grievance against respondent with relator, Cleveland
Bar Association. Respondent failed to respond to relator’s letters and did not
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
otherwise communicate or cooperate with relator and its investigator.
{¶ 3} Respondent failed to register for active status with the Clerk of the
Supreme Court of Ohio for the 1993-1995, 1995-1997, and 1997-1999 biennial
attorney registration periods. Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A). Effective July 1998, we
suspended respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for failing to comply with
the continuing legal education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X. 82 Ohio St.3d 1456,
696 N.E.2d 215. Respondent failed to comply with the terms of our July 1998
order, which prohibited her from practicing law while under suspension.
{¶ 4} In January 1999, relator filed an amended complaint charging
respondent with violating Disciplinary Rules and Rules for the Government of the
Bar. The matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) upon the parties’
stipulated findings, conclusions, and recommendation.
{¶ 5} The panel found the facts as previously set forth and concluded that
by her conduct, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(1) (violating a Disciplinary
Rule), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to
practice law), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek lawful objectives of client), 9-102(B)(4)
(failing to promptly pay, upon request, funds in possession of lawyer that client is
entitled to receive), Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in disciplinary
investigation), and Gov.Bar R. VI(6)(B) (engaging in practice of law during
summary suspension from practice of law for failing to register). The panel
recommended, in accordance with the parties’ stipulated sanction, that respondent
be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio and that she immediately
refund to Pyasik $950 plus statutory interest from April 17, 1996. The board
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________
Benesch, Freidlander, Coplan & Aronoff, L.L.P., and Joseph N. Gross;
Wilsman & Schoonover and Joseph S. Simms, for relator.
2
January Term, 1999
Laura Verbiski, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board except for its
conclusion that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. VI(6)(B) because respondent was
never suspended from the practice of law for failing to register under that rule.
Instead, we suspended respondent from the practice of law under Gov.Bar R. X for
failing to comply with continuing legal education requirements.
{¶ 7} Nevertheless, we adopt the board’s recommended sanction. Neglect
of legal matters and a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation
generally warrant an indefinite suspension. Disciplinary Counsel v. Boykin (1998),
82 Ohio St.3d 100, 694 N.E.2d 899. Similarly, respondent’s failure to seek Pyasik’s
lawful objectives by failing to perfect service of his divorce complaint, resulting in
dismissal, and her failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation
coupled with her failure to timely refund the money to Pyasik, warrant an indefinite
suspension and an order for respondent to repay the unearned portion of the retainer
given by Pyasik. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of
law in Ohio, and she is ordered to immediately pay Pyasik $950 plus statutory
interest from April 17, 1996. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
3