The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 94 Ohio St.3d 224.]
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. CICIRELLA.
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cicirella, 2002-Ohio-643.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Neglect of an entrusted
legal matter—Failing to maintain complete records of all client funds
coming into lawyer’s possession and render appropriate accounts
thereof—Failing to promptly deliver to client funds or property to which
client is entitled—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice—Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on
fitness to practice law—Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in a
disciplinary investigation or hearing—Previous suspension from practice
of law.
(No. 01-1582—Submitted October 10, 2001—Decided January 30, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-71.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} In July 1993, Eleanor Chadwell retained respondent, Leonette F.
Cicirella of Bedford, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0042219, gave her bills and
creditor correspondence, and paid her $150 to file a bankruptcy. Respondent did
not file the bankruptcy, but she repeatedly advised Chadwell that everything was
“okay” and that a date for hearing would be set, even though Chadwell was
receiving calls from creditors. In 1998, Chadwell retained another attorney to file
the bankruptcy. The new attorney was unable to retrieve Chadwell’s papers or the
$150 from respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 2} After several unsuccessful attempts to contact respondent about her
failure to act, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a complaint on
August 14, 2000, alleging that respondent’s failure to act or respond to relator
violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent
did not answer, and the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
(“board”) referred the matter to Master Commissioner Harry W. White for ruling
on relator’s motion for default.
{¶ 3} The master commissioner found the facts as stated and concluded that
respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted
legal matter), 9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds of
a client coming into the lawyer’s possession and render appropriate accounts
thereof), 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client funds or property
to which the client is entitled), 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer
shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6)
(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness
to practice law), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (a lawyer shall not neglect or refuse to
assist or testify in an investigation or hearing).
{¶ 4} The master commissioner further found as an aggravating
circumstance that we had previously suspended respondent from the practice of law
for two years, with one year stayed, for neglecting an entrusted legal matter.
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cicirella (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 544, 715 N.E.2d 1131, and
that in April 2000, we held respondent in contempt for failure to comply with the
terms of the order of suspension. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cicirella (2000), 88 Ohio
St.3d 1463, 726 N.E.2d 1001. The master commissioner recommended that
respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. The board
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the master
commissioner.
2
January Term, 2002
{¶ 5} On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from
the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are 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.
{¶ 6} I respectfully dissent. The majority’s imposition of an indefinite
suspension inadequately takes into account such aggravating factors as
respondent’s prior disciplinary offenses, her repeated failure to cooperate in the
investigation of grievances, and her disregard for the orders of this court. See Rules
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court,
Section 10(B)(1), Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. I would disbar
respondent.
__________________
Steven L. Gardner, Martha H. Krebs and Stanley E. Stein, for relator.
__________________
3