# Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cicirella

> Ohio Supreme Court · September 22, 1999 · 86 Ohio St. 3d 544

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151437

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 22, 1999
- **Citations:** 86 Ohio St. 3d 544; 1999 Ohio 194
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 3 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/11151437

## Opinion text

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 86 Ohio St.3d 544.]

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. CICIRELLA.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cicirella, 1999-Ohio-194.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Two-year suspension with one year of sanction
stayed and attorney ordered to pay $1,000 to client—Handling a legal
matter without adequate preparation—Neglecting an entrusted legal
matter—Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation.
(No. 99-834—Submitted June 22, 1999—Decided September 8, 1999.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-44.
__________________
{¶ 1} In 1995, Joseph and Linda Bowen sued Paul and Alana Shaffer with
respect to the sale of a house. The Shaffers retained respondent, Leonette F.
Cicirella of Bedford, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0042219, who advised them
to file a counterclaim alleging that the Bowens had harassed them.
{¶ 2} In October 1996, respondent informed the Shaffers that their case had
been referred for arbitration. Although respondent instructed the Shaffers to make
copies of evidence to substantiate their harassment claim at the arbitration
proceeding, she did not present any evidence or argument to support the Shaffers’
counterclaim and did not object to new issues raised by the Bowens that were not
part of their original complaint.
{¶ 3} In November 1996, the common pleas court entered judgment in favor
of the Bowens in the amount of $1,000 and also ruled against the Shaffers on their
counterclaim. Despite the Shaffers’ repeated telephone messages inquiring about
the case, respondent never informed them of the arbitration award or the judgment
entered on the award. In 1997, the Shaffers contacted the court and were notified
of the judgment and that the time for appeal had expired.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 4} The Shaffers then filed a grievance against respondent with relator,
Cleveland Bar Association. Respondent failed to respond to relator’s investigative
inquiries, and although she on one occasion promised to file a response, she did not
do so.
{¶ 5} On August 10, 1998, relator filed a complaint charging the respondent
with violating two Disciplinary Rules and a Rule for the Government of the Bar.
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 violated DR 6-101(A)(2) (handling a legal matter without
adequate preparation), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), and
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). The panel
recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law
in Ohio. The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, but
recommended that, based on the fact that only a single matter was involved,
respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with one
year stayed and that respondent pay $1,000 to the Shaffers.
__________________
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and Daniel F. Gourash; Van Aken,
Withers & Webster and Kevin L. Starrett, for relator.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 7} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
board. Although an indefinite suspension is generally warranted when a pattern of
neglecting legal matters is coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing
disciplinary investigation, there is no such pattern of neglect related to multiple
clients here. See Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rollins (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 408, 704

2
January Term, 1999

N.E.2d 1210. The board was justified in relying on the lack of such pattern to
impose a lesser sanction. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law
in Ohio for two years, with one year stayed, and she is ordered to pay $1,000 to the
Shaffers. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151437. Public record. Not legal advice.