Columbus Bar Association v. Balaloski

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Balaloski, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-86.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-86

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. BALALOSKI.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it

may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Balaloski, Slip Opinion No.

2016-Ohio-86.]

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct,

including failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing clients—

Two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions.

(No. 2015-1002—Submitted July 7, 2015—Decided January 14, 2016.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme

Court, No. 2014-102.

_______________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Daniel Karl Balaloski of Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0068122, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997. On

December 15, 2014, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged Balaloski with

professional misconduct arising out of six separate client matters. The charges

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

against Balaloski included failing to provide competent representation, failing to

act with reasonable diligence and promptness, failing to keep his clients reasonably

informed about the status of their legal matters, failing to promptly deliver to a

client funds the client was entitled to receive, and engaging in conduct that

adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.

{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct considered the cause on

the parties’ amended consent-to-discipline agreement. See Gov.Bar R. V(16).

{¶ 3} In the amended consent-to-discipline agreement, Balaloski stipulates

to the facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct constituted

five violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable

diligence in representing a client), four violations of 1.4 (requiring a lawyer to

reasonably communicate with a client), two violations of 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to

provide competent representation to a client), and one violation of 1.15(d)

(requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the client is

entitled to receive). The parties agree to the dismissal of six alleged violations of

8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the

lawyer’s fitness to practice law), four alleged violations of 1.1, four alleged

violations of 1.15(d), two alleged violations of 1.4, and one alleged violation of 1.3.

{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that the applicable mitigating factors include the

absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive,

Balaloski’s acknowledgement that his actions were improper, his full and free

disclosure to the board and his cooperative attitude toward proceedings, and his

good character and reputation. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (2), (4), and (5). In

addition, the parties stipulate that Balaloski’s depression contributed to his

misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7). The parties agree that the applicable

aggravating factors include that there was a pattern of misconduct and that there

were multiple offenses. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3) and (4). Based upon

Balaloski’s stipulated misconduct and these factors, the parties stipulate that the

2

January Term, 2016

appropriate sanction for Balaloski’s misconduct is a two-year suspension from the

practice of law, with the second year stayed on the conditions that Balaloski (1)

engage in no further misconduct, (2) submit proof, upon applying for reinstatement,

that he has complied with Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”)

requirements, and (3) upon reinstatement to the practice of law, serve a one-year

period of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(21)(B).

{¶ 5} The panel and the board found that the consent-to-discipline

agreement conforms to Gov.Bar R. V(16) and recommend that we adopt the

agreement in its entirety.

{¶ 6} In support of this recommendation, the panel referred to Toledo Bar

Assn. v. Stewart, 135 Ohio St.3d 316, 2013-Ohio-795, 986 N.E.2d 947 (a two-year

suspension from the practice of law, with the second year stayed on conditions, and

a one-year period of monitored probation upon reinstatement was the appropriate

sanction for an attorney who accepted retainers from clients and then failed to

perform the contracted work, failed to reasonably communicate with the clients,

failed to return client files and the unearned portion of their fees on termination of

his representation, and failed to cooperate in several of the resulting disciplinary

investigations) and Disciplinary Counsel v. Folwell, 129 Ohio St.3d 297, 951

N.E.2d 775, 2011-Ohio-3181 (a two-year suspension from the practice of law, with

the second year stayed on conditions, and a one-year period of monitored probation

upon reinstatement was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who engaged in a

pattern of misconduct in seven separate client maters).

{¶ 7} We agree that Balaloski violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4—all

on multiple occasions—as well as 1.15(d) and, as stated in the parties’ agreement

and as indicated by the cited precedent, that this conduct warrants a two-year

suspension from the practice of law, with the second year stayed on the conditions

agreed to by the parties and recommended by the board. Therefore, we adopt the

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, including the agreed dismissal of certain

alleged violations.

{¶ 8} Accordingly, Daniel Karl Balaloski is hereby suspended from the

practice of law for a period of two years, with the second year stayed on the

conditions that Balaloski shall (1) not engage in any further misconduct, (2) provide

proof, upon applying for reinstatement, that he has complied with any applicable

OLAP requirements, and (3) upon reinstatement, serve a one-year term of

monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21). If Balaloski fails to

comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and Balaloski will

serve the entire two-year suspension. Costs are taxed to Balaloski.

Judgment accordingly.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur.

_________________

Barbara Petrella, Lori J. Brown, and Alysha Clous, for relator.

Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., and Christopher J. Weber, for

respondent.

_________________

4