Case Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kish

Citation: 2012-Ohio-40

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-01-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kish, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-40.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-40 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. KISH. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kish,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-40.] 
Attorneys at law—Numerous violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Indefinite license suspension. 
(No. 2011-0846—Submitted June 21, 2011—Decided January 11, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-020. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Brian P. Kish of Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0074488, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001. 
{¶ 2} On October 6, 2010, relator, the Mahoning County Bar 
Association, filed a second amended complaint with the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline alleging that Kish had committed multiple acts of 
misconduct in 12 client relationships.  Relying on the parties’ joint stipulation of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
facts and violations, as well as testimony at a formal hearing, the board made 
findings of fact and misconduct and recommended respondent’s indefinite 
suspension from the practice of law.  Other than a few exceptions noted below, 
we adopt the board’s findings of facts and misconduct, order restitution, and 
indefinitely suspend Kish from the practice of law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
Count A 
{¶ 3} After suffering a personal injury in August 2007, Norma Callen 
agreed to pay Kish a contingent fee for his assistance in resolving issues 
concerning the payment of insurance proceeds.  By April 2009, Kish had 
performed little to no legal work on the matter despite numerous calls from 
Callen, so Callen terminated the representation. 
Count B 
{¶ 4} In August 2007, Marilyn Mehit paid Kish $1,250 to pursue a 
collection action against “Jim James.”  Respondent filed a complaint, after which 
he determined that the real debtor was Daniel James.  Kish was unsuccessful, 
however, in locating this individual.  The stipulated facts state that Mehit “became 
disheartened by the delay” and retained a different attorney, who located and won 
a judgment against the debtor in September 2008.  Mehit then filed a complaint 
against Kish, who agreed to pay her a refund of $700. 
{¶ 5} The board found that Kish had violated numerous Rules of 
Professional Conduct in representing Mehit.  While we accept the board’s finding 
of facts, we are not bound by the parties’ stipulation to misconduct.  See, e.g., 
Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Donlin (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 152, 155, 666 N.E.2d 
1137.  We find that the stipulated facts do not clearly and convincingly show that 
Kish committed the alleged misconduct and accordingly dismiss this count. 
 
 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
Count C 
{¶ 6} The parties have agreed to dismiss Count C, and the board made 
no findings with regard to it.  We therefore agree that Count C should be 
dismissed. 
Count D 
{¶ 7} In May 2009, Katherine Woods agreed to pay Kish $1,500 in three 
installments to represent her after she was charged with driving while intoxicated.  
Kish accepted the first $500 but performed no legal work and never spoke to 
Woods again.  Woods terminated Kish, retained another attorney, and asked Kish 
to return her money.  Kish has not done so. 
Count E 
{¶ 8} Faced with charges that he had violated zoning laws, Michael 
Jackson paid Kish $500 to represent him.  Kish promptly filed a written not-guilty 
plea, but never spoke with Jackson again.  Kish did not respond to Jackson’s 
contacts and did not attend a scheduled hearing.  Although Jackson had retained 
another attorney, who notified Kish that he had been retained, Kish appeared in 
court the next month on behalf of Jackson, succeeded in having the charges 
dismissed, and notified Jackson by fax. 
Count F 
{¶ 9} In August 2009, Kish met with Keith Brooks and his wife to 
discuss preparing a will.  Kish accepted $350 but never prepared their will, failed 
to respond to many of their communications, and did not return their money.  
They eventually filed a small-claims complaint against Kish, who did not appear 
and had a judgment entered against him. 
Count G 
{¶ 10} In June 2009, Kish met with Carol Venardos to discuss preparing a 
will and power of attorney and accepted $450 to perform the work.  Venardos’s 
niece made numerous attempts to reach Kish, asking him either to advise when 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
the work would be completed or to return the money.  Kish never responded to 
these communications. 
Count H 
{¶ 11} In October 2007, Dennis Barr paid Kish a retainer on behalf of a 
friend.  At their initial meeting, Kish, who had just left a local law firm, 
commented on his financial hardships; in response, Barr offered to help him and 
lent Kish $3,000.  Barr later hired Kish to represent him in a pair of actions, for 
which he paid Kish another $2,000.  At a pretrial conference for one of the 
actions, Kish repaid Barr $1,500, and a hearing was set for six months later.  
From that point forward, Kish ceased responding to Barr’s efforts to reach him, 
and although Barr appeared for the scheduled hearing, Kish did not.  Barr then 
sent letters terminating Kish’s services and demanding repayment of the loan, but 
Kish has not repaid the money. 
Count I 
{¶ 12} In June 2009, Keith Carter paid Kish $1,500 to represent him in a 
drunk-driving matter.  Kish advised Carter that he could not drive for 15 days, 
after which he could apply for limited driving privileges.  Kish filed a not-guilty 
plea, and a trial was set for November.  Kish never filed a request for driving 
privileges.  After using two weeks’ vacation, Carter was called into work, and he 
drove despite his suspended license.  He was pulled over and arrested and spent 
the night in jail.  After learning that Kish had not filed a motion to restore his 
driving privileges, Carter made numerous, unsuccessful attempts to contact Kish.  
Thereafter, Carter retained a new attorney and terminated Kish’s services.  Kish 
has not returned any of Carter’s money. 
Count J 
{¶ 13} In February 2008, Susan Walters retained Kish to defend her 
against a personal-injury claim.  Walters paid Kish $1,500 up front and agreed to 
pay him $100 per hour.  Kish attended a pretrial, but then failed to answer 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
discovery, even after being ordered by the court to provide it.  The court 
sanctioned him.  Kish also failed to respond to a motion for judgment on the 
pleadings, which was granted, resulting in a judgment of $11,000 against Walters, 
plus costs and interest.  Walters subsequently lost her driver’s license and is 
unemployed.  Throughout this time, Walters made numerous attempts to contact 
Kish, but had little success.  Kish has not returned any part of the $1,500 retainer. 
Count K 
{¶ 14} In March 2008, David Williams paid Kish $500 to defend him in a 
lawsuit.  Kish did not enter an appearance in the case, which had been ongoing, 
but entered directly into negotiations with opposing counsel.  The resulting 
settlement required Williams to pay $1,455.  Williams, however, never heard 
from Kish after he accepted the fee and did not know the status of his case until 
after he filed a grievance with the bar association. 
{¶ 15} The board found that Kish violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) and (4).  
We agree that the evidence clearly and convincingly shows a violation of 
1.4(a)(3), which required Kish to keep Williams “reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter”; the stipulation states that after accepting the fee, Williams 
“never heard from the Respondent.”  But the evidence does not show a violation 
of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4).  That rule requires lawyers to “comply as soon as 
practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client,” but the 
stipulated facts do not disclose any requests for information from Williams.  
Accordingly, we dismiss that finding of misconduct. 
Count L 
{¶ 16} In April 2009, the Glenmoor Volunteer Fire Department paid Kish 
a retainer of $3,000 to represent it in a breach-of-contract action.  Kish performed 
six to eight hours of work on the case, but then ceased responding to calls and 
emails.  That August, the president of the department emailed Kish seeking an 
update and asking him to return the retainer if he did not have time to handle the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
case.  Kish neither responded nor returned the fee, and the department filed a 
grievance. 
Rule Violations 
{¶ 17} The board concluded that the conduct described above resulted in 
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) and 1.4, 1.5(a) (requiring a 
lawyer not to charge an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 1.15(d) (requiring a 
lawyer promptly to deliver client funds and provide a full accounting of such 
funds), and 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer promptly to return unearned fees). 
{¶ 18} Except as noted above, we adopt the board’s findings. 
Sanction 
{¶ 19} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the duties the lawyer violated, the lawyer’s mental 
state, and sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 
96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. Because each disciplinary case 
is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take into 
account “all relevant factors” in determining what sanction to impose.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 20} As aggravating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found 
that respondent had demonstrated a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple 
offenses, and failed to make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), 
and (i). 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
{¶ 21} As to mitigating factors, the board found that respondent lacked a 
prior disciplinary record, had fully and freely disclosed his misconduct, had been 
cooperative after the institution of formal proceedings, and had presented 
evidence of good character and reputation.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), 
and (e).  The board did not accept the parties’ stipulation to mental-health 
mitigation, however.  Although the board was impressed with Kish’s candor and 
noted “the depth of [his] mental illness”—a prolonged, deep depression following 
his brother’s coma and permanently disabling injuries in 1987, his father’s death 
in 1994, and his wife’s attempted suicide and demand for divorce in 2009—it 
disagreed that Kish had sustained a period of successful treatment.  And contrary 
to the board’s findings, Kish does have a prior disciplinary violation—he was 
briefly suspended from the practice of law in December 2005 for failing to 
register with the Supreme Court Office of Attorney Registration.  In re Attorney 
Registration of Kish, 107 Ohio St.3d. 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671. 
{¶ 22} Before the board, respondent argued for a one-year suspension 
with conditions, but the board disagreed and recommended that respondent be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The board was “not convinced 
there is a prognosis that [Kish] will be able to return to competent, ethical practice 
under specific conditions.” And Kish himself, the panel noted, had “testified that 
he did not know when and if he would be able to return to the practice of law.” 
{¶ 23} The board recommended that respondent “be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law” and that restitution be ordered.  We adopt the 
board’s recommended sanction, which is appropriate in this case.  See, e.g., 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Pullins, 127 Ohio St.3d 436, 2010-Ohio-6241, 940 
N.E.2d 952, ¶ 88 (imposing indefinite suspension where respondent’s misconduct 
related to underlying mental-health issues); Disciplinary Counsel v. Andrews, 124 
Ohio St.3d 523, 2010-Ohio-931, 924 N.E.2d 829, ¶ 18 (imposing indefinite 
suspension where respondent had no aggravating factors but committed multiple 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
violations); see also, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Holland, 106 Ohio St.3d 372, 
2005-Ohio-5322, 835 N.E.2d 361, ¶ 25 (requiring payment of restitution as 
determined by relator).  The record, the balance of aggravating and mitigating 
factors, and precedent all support the board’s recommendation. 
{¶ 24} Accordingly, Brian P. Kish is indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in the state of Ohio and is ordered to make restitution within 30 
days as follows: $700 to Marilyn Mehit; $500 to Katherine Woods; $500 to 
Michael Jackson; $350 to Keith Brooks; $450 to Carol Venardos; $3,500 to 
Dennis Barr; $1,500 to Keith Carter; $1,500 to Susan Walters; $500 to David 
Williams; and $3,000 to the Glenmoor Volunteer Fire Department.  Additionally, 
prior to reinstatement, Kish must demonstrate that he has fulfilled the following 
the conditions: (1) he must provide proof of continuing mental-health counseling 
and proof that he is fully competent to return to the practice of law; (2) he must 
comply with all requirements of his treating physician during the suspension 
period; (3) he must comply with all CLE requirements; and (4) he shall be subject 
to a two-year probationary period, during which he must (a) continue to abide by 
the foregoing requirements to the extent they are of a continuing nature, (b) be 
monitored by relator, and (c) permit relator to monitor his attorney trust account.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Ronald Slipski and David Comstock Jr., for relator. 
______________________