Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kirsh

Citation: 2005-Ohio-2589

Docket Number: 20041823

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kirsh, 105 Ohio St.3d 435, 2005-Ohio-2589.] 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. KIRSH. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kirsh,  
105 Ohio St.3d 435, 2005-Ohio-2589.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of entrusted 
legal matter — Failure to seek objectives of client — Failure to carry out 
contract of professional employment — Intentionally damaging or 
prejudicing client — Fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Failure to pay 
funds to client — Failure to register — Failure to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 2004-1823 — Submitted January 19, 2005 — Decided June 8, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-034. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, S. Martin Kirsh, of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0007868, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1961.  
For nearly 40 years, he practiced without known incident.  Then, in 2000, the first 
of five grievances was filed against respondent.  Eventually, on April 14, 2003, 
relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint charging respondent with 
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility while representing five different 
clients. 
{¶ 2} On three occasions, involving child-support, bankruptcy, and 
paternity actions, respondent accepted retainers and/or filing fees but never filed 
suit on behalf of his clients.  Respondent similarly failed to file suit for a fourth 
client in a medical-malpractice action.  Respondent was retained by a fifth client 
to resolve a personal-injury claim against the local transit authority.  It is unclear 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
what steps, if any, respondent took on his client’s behalf.  At one point, 
respondent told his client that he and the transit authority were discussing 
settlement, but his client heard nothing further. 
{¶ 3} In each case, his clients were eventually unable to contact him, 
despite repeated attempts.  Their attempts ultimately culminated in the discovery 
that respondent had closed his law office, unbeknownst to any of his clients.  
Respondent’s whereabouts since that time remain unknown. 
{¶ 4} Respondent did not answer the complaint, nor has he responded to 
or otherwise communicated with the relator or any other party relevant to this 
action since its inception.  Extraordinary measures have been taken to locate 
respondent without success, and notice of this proceeding was ultimately served 
through the clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  
On October 3, 2003, relator moved the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio for a default judgment.  The board, 
in turn, referred the matter to a master commissioner.  The master commissioner 
found that respondent had committed the misconduct alleged.  As to all five 
clients, the master commissioner found violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer 
shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not 
intentionally fail to seek the lawful objectives of his clients), 7-101(A)(2) (a 
lawyer shall not intentionally fail to carry out a contract of employment), and 7-
101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not intentionally prejudice or damage a client). 
{¶ 5} As to the medical-malpractice and personal-injury clients, the 
master commissioner also found violations of DR-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  In the child-support 
matter, the master commissioner found a violation of 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall 
promptly pay or deliver to client funds in the lawyer’s possession that the client is 
entitled to receive).  Finally, the master commissioner found violations of 
Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D) (a lawyer shall register a current residence and office 
January Term, 2005 
3 
address with the Supreme Court of Ohio) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (a lawyer shall 
cooperate in disciplinary investigations). 
{¶ 6} In his review, the master commissioner found no mitigating 
factors.  Respondent’s failure to reply or otherwise cooperate with the 
investigation was determined to be a serious aggravating factor.  The master 
commissioner also noted that in each case, the client suffered a loss either through 
money paid to respondent and not refunded or through the loss of a cause of 
action that as a result of respondent’s misconduct is now permanently barred. 
{¶ 7} The master commissioner, upon thorough consideration, rejected 
as too stringent relator’s proposed sanction of permanent disbarment.  While 
respondent’s misconduct was very serious, the master commissioner balanced it 
against the number of years that respondent had practiced without apparent 
disciplinary problems and observed that that history was “in conflict with the 
conduct herein discussed.”  The master commissioner was also troubled by the 
fact that no one knew what had happened to respondent.  For those reasons, the 
master commissioner recommended an indefinite suspension. 
{¶ 8} The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommendation 
of 
the 
master 
commissioner, 
with 
the 
additional 
recommendation that the cost of the proceedings be taxed to respondent.  We, in 
turn, adopt in full the board’s report and recommendation.  Given the unusual 
circumstances of this case, we agree with the board that the finality of disbarment 
is inappropriate.  Respondent’s decades of practice without incident stand in sharp 
contrast to his unexplained exit from public and private life.  While an indefinite 
suspension will adequately protect the public by remaining in effect until 
respondent affirmatively seeks reinstatement, it would also give respondent the 
opportunity to explain the events germane to this matter should communication 
ever be reestablished. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 9} Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Robert J. Hanna and Heather C. Logan, for relator. 
______________________