Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Motylinski

Citation: 2012-Ohio-5779

Docket Number: 2011-1016

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Motylinski, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5779.] 
 
 
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-5779 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MOTYLINSKI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Motylinski,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5779.] 
(No. 2011-1016—Submitted June 20, 2012—Decided December 7, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-021. 
_________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael Motylinski of St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, 
Attorney Registration No. 0076628, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
2003.1 On February 14, 2011, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Motylinski 
with professional misconduct for failing to reasonably communicate with a client 
and for continuing to practice law after he changed the status of his license to 
practice law to inactive. 
                                                 
1 Motylinski testified that he had become licensed to practice law in California in 2009 and had 
provisional admittance to practice in the Virgin Islands.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} In accordance with BCGD Proc.Reg. 11, the parties submitted a 
consent-to-discipline agreement containing stipulations of fact and misconduct 
and a recommendation that Motylinski be suspended from the practice of law for 
a period of six months, with the entire suspension stayed.  On the 
recommendation of a panel of its members, the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline recommended that we adopt the consent-to-discipline 
agreement.  We rejected the parties’ recommended sanction, however, and 
remanded the matter to the board for further proceedings.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Motylinski, 129 Ohio St.3d 1458, 2011-Ohio-4228, 951 N.E.2d 1052. 
{¶ 3} On remand, the parties submitted their stipulated findings of fact, 
misconduct, and mitigation, and agreed to a six-month stayed suspension.  A 
panel of the board agreed to accept the parties’ stipulations in lieu of a hearing 
and adopted the parties’ stipulated sanction of a six-month stayed suspension, but 
recommended that the stay of the suspension be conditioned on Motylinski 
reimbursing the client for a filing fee.  The board adopted the panel’s proposed 
sanction, and so do we. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The stipulated facts and testimony demonstrate that in April 2009 
the New York law firm of Bond, Schoeneck & King, P.L.L.C. referred its client, 
Roth Industries, to Motylinski to handle a collection matter on a contingent-fee 
basis.  The law firm forwarded to Motylinski a check in the amount of $125 for 
court costs, and on May 5, 2009, Motylinski filed a complaint in the Cuyahoga 
County Court of Common Pleas on behalf of Roth. 
{¶ 5} In July 2009, Motylinski received an offer of employment in the 
Virgin Islands that he accepted.  He subsequently moved out of the country on 
August 15, 2009, and changed the status of his license to practice law in Ohio to 
inactive on September 1, 2009.  From August to September 2009, Motylinski did 
not respond to   Bond, Schoeneck & King’s numerous phone calls and e-mails 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
regarding the status of Roth’s case.  It was not until Bond, Schoeneck & King 
demanded that Motylinski return Roth’s file that Motylinski responded to any of 
the law firm’s messages.  At that time, Motylinski revealed that he was working 
in the Virgin Islands but did not disclose the status of his registration to practice 
law in Ohio. 
{¶ 6} In November and December 2009, Motylinski continued to work 
on Roth’s case, including transmitting a settlement offer and participating in a 
telephone pretrial conference with the court.  Eventually, the court discovered that 
Motylinski was registered as inactive and, on December 21, 2009, dismissed 
Roth’s case without prejudice since Motylinski was prohibited from practicing 
law.  Motylinski did not advise Roth or Bond, Schoeneck & King that the case 
had been dismissed.  Instead, Motylinski continued to attempt to negotiate a 
settlement for Roth until February 2010 when Bond, Schoeneck & King 
discovered Motylinski’s inactive status and terminated his services. 
{¶ 7} Based upon the stipulated facts summarized above, the parties 
agreed that Motylinski’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a 
lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information 
from the client), 1.4(b) (requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding 
the representation), 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a 
jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that 
jurisdiction), and 5.5(b)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer who is not admitted to practice in 
this jurisdiction to hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is 
admitted to practice in this jurisdiction). 
{¶ 8} The panel found that Motylinski violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4), 
1.4(b), and 5.5(b)(2), but concluded there were not sufficient facts to find a 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) and recommended that the charge be dismissed.  
While the board agreed that Motylinski had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
1.4(b), it disagreed with the panel in two respects.  First, it found that Motylinski 
had violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) by engaging in the practice of law while on 
inactive status.  Second, it recommended dismissal of the charge of violating 
Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(b)(2), which prohibits a lawyer from holding out that he or she 
is admitted to the practice of law in this jurisdiction, because Motylinski was 
admitted to the practice of law in Ohio even though he was on inactive status.  We 
agree with the findings of the board.  Accordingly, the charge of violating 
Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(b)(2) is dismissed. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
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 BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 
473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated that mitigating factors include the absence of 
a prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, and full and 
free disclosure and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (d).  The parties did not stipulate to 
any aggravating factors.  The panel and board found, however, that the evidence 
demonstrated that Motylinski did have a selfish and dishonest motive.  The record 
reveals that Motylinski did not disclose his inactive status and continued to work 
on Roth’s collection case after becoming inactive because he wanted to collect a 
percentage of any settlement.  We agree that Motylinski’s intentions were 
dishonest and decline to consider BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b) as a mitigating 
factor. 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated that that a six-month stayed suspension is the 
appropriate sanction for Motylinski’s misconduct.  The panel and board agree 
with the recommended sanction but also recommend that we condition the stay of 
Motylinski’s suspension on requiring Motylinski to reimburse Roth the money 
that was given him to pay the court costs in Roth’s collection case.  We agree and 
conclude that the sanction recommended by the board is appropriate. 
{¶ 12} Accordingly, we suspend Michael Motylinski from the practice of 
law for a period of six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition 
that he pay Roth Industries $125 within 30 days of the date of this order.  Costs 
are taxed to Motylinski. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Michael Motylinski, pro se. 
__________________________