Case Title: Columbiana Cty. Bar Assn. v. Barborak

Citation: 2016-Ohio-8167

Docket Number: 2016-0853

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbiana Cty. Bar Assn. v. Barborak, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-8167.] 
 
 
 
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-8167 
COLUMBIANA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BARBORAK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbiana Cty. Bar Assn. v. Barborak, Slip Opinion No. 
2016-Ohio-8167.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Permanent disbarment. 
(No. 2016-0853—Submitted August 30, 2016—Decided December 19, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2015-030. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Virginia Mary Barborak of Lisbon, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0068601, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997. 
{¶ 2} In a second amended complaint filed with the Board of Professional 
Conduct on July 20, 2015, relator, Columbiana County Bar Association, alleged 
that Barborak violated multiple professional-conduct rules in four separate probate 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
matters.  Specifically, the complaint alleged that she failed to hold funds belonging 
to the probate estates in an interest-bearing trust account separate from her own 
property, failed to maintain required records documenting the funds entrusted to 
her, and falsified bank statements and probate accountings to conceal her 
misappropriation of entrusted funds. 
{¶ 3} The parties submitted stipulations of fact, rule violations, aggravating 
and mitigating factors, and exhibits.  They jointly recommended that Barborak be 
suspended from the practice of law for two years for her misconduct.  A panel of 
the board heard Barborak’s testimony and made findings of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors that are consistent with the parties’ stipulations.  
But the panel recommended that Barborak be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  The board adopted the panel report in its entirety. 
{¶ 4} Barborak objects to the board’s finding and consideration of a 
discrepancy between her hearing testimony and a statement her counsel made 
during a posthearing telephone conference with the panel chairperson as additional 
evidence of her pattern of dishonesty.  We overrule her objection and adopt the 
board’s findings of fact and misconduct.  We find, however, that Barborak’s 
misconduct warrants her permanent disbarment from the practice of law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} At various times beginning in 2006 through 2015, Barborak was 
entrusted with four unrelated probate matters and served as either a court-appointed 
fiduciary or counsel for a court-appointed fiduciary.  The parties entered into 
detailed stipulations of fact regarding Barborak’s misconduct in each of these 
matters, and the board’s findings of facts are consistent with those stipulations.  We 
incorporate the parties’ stipulations by reference and summarize her misconduct 
below. 
{¶ 6} In October 2009, Barborak began to misappropriate significant sums 
of money belonging to three probate estates and a testamentary trust by 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
withdrawing the money and issuing checks from her client trust account and several 
other accounts without authorization.  She used those funds not only to pay herself 
and her personal and business expenses but also to make disbursements on behalf 
of other clients—including other estates.  Barborak stipulated that the balances in 
her accounts were often significantly less than the amounts that she should have 
held on behalf of her clients.  And she admits that at one time, her client trust 
account held just $11,709.26 when, but for her unauthorized withdrawals, it should 
have held $171,481.76 in client funds—a deficiency of nearly $160,000.  She also 
deposited two checks that she had received from her brother—$121,500 in all—
into her client trust account. 
{¶ 7} Barborak did not maintain adequate records regarding the funds she 
held and disbursed on behalf of her clients.  Nor did she did timely file required 
accounts with the probate courts overseeing the relevant matters.  And the few 
reports she actually filed were replete with false statements designed to mislead and 
misinform the probate courts.  Moreover, Barborak altered 18 months of bank 
records by adding $82,000 or $103,000 to the actual balance of each statement to 
make it appear that the funds entrusted to her remained in her client trust account.  
She then submitted those records to the Trumbull County Probate Court in April 
2015 with the intent to mislead and misinform the court. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the board found that Barborak’s conduct 
charged in each of the four counts violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer 
to hold funds belonging to a client or third party in a client trust account separate 
from the lawyer’s own property and to maintain certain records regarding the funds 
held in that account), 3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false 
statement of fact or law to a tribunal), 3.3(a)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
knowingly offering evidence that the lawyer knows to be false), 8.4(a) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from violating or attempting to violate the Ohio Rules of Professional 
Conduct), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).  Citing 
the scope and extent of Barborak’s misappropriations and its finding that her 
multiple misstatements to tribunals constitute a troubling pattern of dishonesty by 
a lawyer, the board agreed with the parties’ stipulation that her conduct was so 
egregious as to warrant a finding that she violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law).  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-
3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 9} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, 
relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in similar 
cases.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A). 
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated and the board agreed that Barborak acted with 
a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, and committed 
multiple offenses.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2), (3), and (4).  The panel and board 
also found that Barborak’s pattern of dishonesty continued at the hearing.  At the 
panel hearing, she testified, “I have a few cases that I’m winding up, but I am—
have removed myself from the practice of law due to stress and so forth,” and again 
reiterated, “I have voluntarily removed myself from the practice of law.”  Yet the 
panel noted that five months later, her attorney registration remained active and 
Barborak’s counsel confirmed that she continued to practice law during a 
posthearing telephone conference with the panel chairperson. 
{¶ 12} The parties stipulated and the board found that relevant mitigating 
factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record and Barborak’s reputation 
for significant community involvement.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and (5).  The 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
board noted that Barborak has received counseling for a depressive disorder since 
2012 and entered into a three-year contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program on March 26, 2015.  But the board declined to consider these facts as 
mitigation because Barborak presented no evidence that the disorder contributed to 
her misconduct and no prognosis that she will be able to resume the competent, 
ethical, and professional practice of law.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7).  And 
although the parties’ stipulated that Barborak has made full restitution in each of 
the matters giving rise to this disciplinary matter, the board did not consider this to 
be a mitigating factor.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(3).  The board also expressed its 
concern that it was unable to determine whether any other clients or beneficiaries 
had been harmed by Barborak’s misconduct because she failed to keep proper 
records regarding the funds entrusted to her and neither her counsel nor a third-
party auditor were able to determine a true balance in each matter. 
{¶ 13} The board rejected the parties’ recommended sanction of a two-year 
suspension in light of Barborak’s six-year pattern of dishonesty; her 
misappropriation of substantial client funds; her submission of intentionally false, 
misleading, and forged documents to tribunals on multiple occasions; the 
representations Barborak and her counsel have made about Barborak’s ongoing 
practice of law, which are, at best, inconsistent; and her poor recordkeeping, which 
has rendered it impossible to determine whether any additional clients have been 
harmed by her conduct.  Instead, the board recommended that Barborak be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  In addition to the 
requirements for reinstatement to the practice of law set forth in Gov.Bar R. 
V(25)(D), the board recommended that Barborak be required to (1) prepare and 
submit a full accounting and reconciliation of her current and former client trust 
accounts and make full restitution to any clients who are found to be owed 
restitution as a result of that accounting and reconciliation, (2) submit proof that 
she has established an office accounting system to accurately track receipts and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
disbursements of client funds, fees, loans, and expenses, (3) submit certification 
from a qualified health-care professional that she is fit to resume the competent, 
ethical, and professional practice of law, and (4) work and cooperate with a 
monitoring attorney assigned by relator for a period of time and subject to 
conditions to be determined during her reinstatement proceeding. 
{¶ 14} In support of this recommendation, the board notes that the 
presumptive sanction for misappropriation is disbarment but that the sanction may 
be tempered with sufficient evidence of mitigating or extenuating circumstances.  
See, e.g., Dayton Bar Assn. v. Gerren, 103 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-4110, 812 
N.E.2d 1280, ¶ 14.  The board also cites five cases in which we have indefinitely 
suspended attorneys who misappropriated client funds or submitted falsified 
documents or statements to courts.  See Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. McElroy, 
140 Ohio St.3d 391, 2014-Ohio-3774,  18 N.E.3d 1191 (attorney submitted a false 
affidavit to a court, was convicted on felony counts of forgery and tampering with 
evidence, and did not correct false statements about his prior criminal record made 
by his counsel at his sentencing hearing); Disciplinary Counsel v. Leksan, 136 Ohio 
St.3d 85, 2013-Ohio-2415, 990 N.E.2d 591 (attorney commingled personal and 
client funds, repeatedly misappropriated client funds, and failed to maintain 
required records of the funds held in his client trust account); Lake Cty. Bar Assn. 
v. Rozanc, 132 Ohio St.3d 114, 2012-Ohio-2408, 969 N.E.2d 1187 (attorney who 
had a prior disciplinary record concealed estate assets, committed a fraud upon the 
probate court while serving as executor of an estate, and failed to respond to the 
resulting disciplinary complaint); Akron Bar Assn. v. Smithern, 125 Ohio St.3d 72, 
2010-Ohio-652, 926 N.E.2d 274 (attorney was convicted of felony theft for 
converting the retainer fees of more than 30 clients by depositing them into her 
personal account rather than her firm’s trust account); Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Bandman, 125 Ohio St.3d 503, 2010-Ohio-2115,  929 N.E.2d 442 (attorney 
January Term, 2016 
 
7
misappropriated more than $60,000 from a family trust for which he served as 
trustee and concealed his actions from his client). 
{¶ 15} Barborak accepts the board’s recommended sanction.  She objects, 
however, to the board’s finding that she continued to engage in dishonesty at the 
hearing—a finding rooted in the discrepancy between Barborak’s December 2015 
testimony that she had removed herself from the practice of law and her counsel’s 
May 2016 representation to relator and the panel chairperson that she continued to 
practice law. Barborak asserts that her counsel would not have been able to confirm 
that she continued to practice law because he had no firsthand knowledge of her 
activities and that her own testimony merely conveyed that she was not accepting 
any new cases and was winding up her practice in anticipation of her suspension.  
Although Barborak did testify that she was winding up her practice, she also plainly 
twice stated that she had “removed” herself from the practice of law; however, she 
had not done so.  Therefore, even if we were to completely disregard counsel’s 
representation to the panel chairperson, there is ample evidence that Barborak’s 
pattern of deception was ongoing.  We therefore overrule her objection. 
{¶ 16} Given Barborak’s lengthy and disturbing pattern of failing to 
maintain records of client funds entrusted to her, misappropriating client funds, and 
intentionally submitting false and fraudulent documents to the courts of this state—
which are more serious and more pervasive than the cases cited in support of the 
recommended indefinite suspension—we conclude that permanent disbarment is 
the only appropriate sanction in this case. 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, Virginia Mary Barborak is permanently disbarred from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Barborak. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
Timothy A. Barry, for relator. 
John B. Juhasz, for respondent. 
_________________