Case Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Belkin

Citation: 2001-Ohio-136

Docket Number: 20001867

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-05-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Belkin, 92 Ohio St.3d 12, 2001-Ohio-136.] 
 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BELKIN. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Belkin (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 12.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Eighteen-month suspension with entire 
suspension stayed on conditions — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter 
— Failing to carry out contract of employment — Failing to promptly 
pay or deliver to client funds that client is entitled to receive. 
(No. 00-1867 — Submitted January 10, 2001 — Decided May 30, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-88. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On October 13, 1998, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar 
Association, filed a complaint, later amended to include four counts, charging 
respondent, Alan Belkin of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0011542, 
with violating several Disciplinary Rules.  Respondent answered, and the matter 
was referred for hearing to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court. 
 
Based on stipulations and testimony received at the hearing, the panel 
found that in July 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie Clinkscale retained respondent and 
paid him a $1,500 retainer to pursue a breach-of-contract action in California.  
Respondent failed to provide the Clinkscales with a retainer agreement and did 
not respond to their inquiries about his work until September 1996, when he 
reported only that he had contacted opposing counsel in California.  He also failed 
to return the full retainer as promised.  The panel concluded that respondent’s 
failure to act violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted 
legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
employment), and 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall not fail to promptly pay or deliver 
to the client funds that the client is entitled to receive). 
 
The panel also found that in June 1997, Dwayne Lacey retained 
respondent and agreed to pay him $1,000 as a nonrefundable retainer against a 
contingency fee to pursue a discrimination claim and to appeal an adverse 
unemployment compensation decision.  Respondent filed the discrimination case 
and, after reviewing the record of the unemployment compensation proceedings, 
filed an appeal and a brief on behalf of Lacey.  Respondent also arranged for the 
union to employ Lacey to perform investigative work for $500. 
 
In October 1997, without informing respondent, Lacey filed a Chapter 13 
bankruptcy proceeding.  Respondent discovered the bankruptcy filing in August 
1998 when the common pleas judge stayed the unemployment appeal during the 
pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding.  In February 1999, Lacey discharged 
respondent and requested that his records and retainer be returned.  Respondent 
did not return the retainer and did not return Lacey’s records until July 1999.  The 
panel concluded that respondent’s conduct in this matter violated DR 9-
102(B)(4). 
 
In addition, the panel found that Julie Scholtes and Fay Kopis retained 
respondent to pursue claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and each 
paid him a $1,000 nonrefundable retainer to be credited against a one-third 
contingency fee in each case.  Respondent commenced the actions against the 
employer on their behalf and engaged in full discovery.  In September 1999, after 
the court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, respondent failed 
to advise Scholtes and Kopis about the ruling in time for them to appeal the 
decision.  The panel concluded that with respect to this matter respondent violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3). 
 
The panel noted in mitigation that respondent had practiced employment 
discrimination law for over twenty-five years, that he returned the retainer to the 
January Term, 2001 
3 
Clinkscales, that Scholtes and Kopis were not materially harmed by his actions, 
that he had suffered from depression for many years, and that he cooperated with 
relator in the investigation and demonstrated remorse for his conduct.  The panel 
believed that respondent’s misconduct was a result of a disorganized practice and 
noted that he appeared to have taken steps to correct this.  The panel 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for eighteen 
months, with all eighteen months stayed, during which time respondent would be 
on probation, with his office procedures monitored by one or more attorneys in 
good standing in Ohio.  The panel further recommended that respondent be 
ordered to pay $1,000 to Lacey within thirty days of the entry of any sanction by 
this court. The panel recommended that if respondent does not make timely 
restitution to Lacey, or if during the probation period he violates a Disciplinary 
Rule or fails to cooperate with his monitor, the full suspension should then be 
imposed. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
 
We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for eighteen months; however, the eighteen months suspension is 
stayed, and respondent shall be on probation with his office procedures monitored 
by one or more attorneys in good standing in Ohio, to be selected by relator.  
Further, respondent shall pay $1,000 to Lacey within thirty days from the entry of 
this order.  If respondent does not make restitution to Lacey, violates a 
Disciplinary Rule, or fails to cooperate with his monitor, then the full suspension 
shall be imposed.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., 
concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I believe that disorganization is an 
insufficient excuse in mitigation. Nor has the respondent adequately explained 
how his life-long  depression, which was allegedly being treated, contributed to 
this neglect.  I would also disagree that Scholtes and Kopis were not materially 
harmed; they lost their right to appeal an adverse ruling.  Therefore, I would find 
that the seriousness of the respondent’s conduct warrants that he be suspended 
from the practice of law for eighteen months, with twelve months stayed, during 
which he would be subject to probation and monitoring by one or more attorneys 
in good standing.  Thus, I respectfully dissent. 
__________________ 
 
Margaret E. Stanard, Harry J. Jacob III and Robert I. Chernett, for 
relator. 
 
Alan Belkin, pro se. 
__________________