Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Zaremsky

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Zaremsky, 94 Ohio St.3d 17, 2001-Ohio-6978.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ZAREMSKY.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Zaremsky (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 17.]

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire sanction

stayed — Commingling client funds with personal funds — Failing to

maintain complete records of all funds coming into lawyer’s possession

and render appropriate accounts thereof.

(No. 01-1207 — Submitted August 28, 2001 — Decided December 19, 2001.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-84.

__________________

Per Curiam. Respondent, Michael Lee Zaremsky of Cleveland, Ohio,

Attorney Registration No. 0038372, did not have a client trust account in

December 1997. On December 23, 1997, when he received a check for $9,500

representing insurance settlement proceeds due his client, Margaret O’Sullivan,

he deposited the funds in his business checking account and immediately wrote a

check to O’Sullivan for her share of the proceeds. After taking his fee,

respondent was to disburse the remainder, $3,452.60, to medical providers.

Respondent did not pay O’Sullivan’s medical bills until informed in July

1999 by relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, that Shaker Square Medical

Clinic had filed a grievance against him for failure to make O’Sullivan’s payment.

Over the next few months, respondent paid O’Sullivan’s three remaining medical

bills.

Relator filed a complaint on October 9, 2000, alleging that respondent’s

conduct violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent answered,

and the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on

Grievances and Discipline (“board”).

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Based on stipulations and evidence at a hearing, the panel found the facts

as set forth above and concluded that respondent’s deposit of his client’s funds in

his personal account and his failure to pay the medical bills promptly violated DR

9-102(A) (a lawyer shall not commingle funds of a client with personal funds)

and 9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds coming

into the lawyer’s possession and render appropriate accounts thereof). The panel

noted that respondent had no previous disciplinary problems, that he was

suffering from depression and sleep deprivation, and that he was embarrassed by

and apologetic about his failure to pay O’Sullivan’s bills. The panel

recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six

months with the entire six months stayed.

The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the

panel.

Having reviewed the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice

of law for six months with the entire six months stayed. Costs are taxed to

respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and

LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna M. Anelli,

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Mary L. Cibella, for respondent.

__________________

2