Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wolosin

Citation: 1999-Ohio-467

Docket Number: 19981742

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-01-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. WOLOSIN. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wolosin (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Appropriation of 
client funds — Pattern of neglecting client interests — Failing to comply 
with Supreme Court’s April 1997 suspension order — Failing to cooperate 
in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 98-1742 — Submitted September 29, 1998 — Decided January 20, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-68. 
 
In March 1995, we suspended respondent, Gary E. Wolosin, a.k.a. Gary H. 
Ellison, of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0008072, from the practice 
of law in Ohio for two years for neglecting five bankruptcy cases during the period 
from September 1992 through December 1992.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wolosin 
(1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 611, 646 N.E.2d 455.  We stayed the suspension and placed 
respondent on monitored probation with certain conditions.  In April 1997, we 
revoked respondent’s probation and reinstated his two-year suspension from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wolosin (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 
1447, 677 N.E.2d 809. 
 
On January 9, 1998, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed an amended 
complaint charging respondent with numerous violations of the Disciplinary Rules 
and the Rules for the Government of the Bar.  After respondent filed an answer 
generally denying the allegations of the amended complaint, the matter was heard 
before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”).  Although notice of the hearing was sent to the same 
address that he listed in his answer, respondent did not attend the hearing, and no 
one appeared at the hearing on his behalf. 
 
2
 
The panel found that in eleven separate instances in 1996 and 1997, clients 
hired respondent to represent them in bankruptcy cases.  Respondent neglected 
these cases and did not carry out his employment duties.  In several of these cases, 
respondent received retainer fees that he never refunded, even after being 
dismissed by the clients.  In some of the cases, respondent transferred his clients’ 
files to another attorney without his clients’ permission.  In two of the cases, the 
bankruptcy court found respondent in contempt for failing to comply with court 
orders for him to refund attorney fees to his clients. 
 
Typical of respondent’s neglect in these eleven cases is Count One, in 
which the panel found that in December 1996, Carole Brown paid respondent a 
$775 retainer to file a bankruptcy petition on her behalf.  Brown later learned that 
her bankruptcy petition was not filed, and she made repeated unsuccessful 
attempts to contact respondent.  Respondent also failed to timely notify her that he 
had been suspended from the practice of law in April 1997.  In April 1997, Brown 
sent a certified letter to respondent dismissing him as an attorney and requesting a 
refund of the $775 retainer.  The letter was returned unclaimed, and respondent 
never refunded the retainer to Brown.  Respondent also never filed a bankruptcy 
petition on Brown’s behalf. 
 
The panel concluded that in these eleven cases, respondent committed 
eleven violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him), 
eleven violations of DR 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out an employment contract), 
ten violations of DR 2-106(A) (charging a clearly excessive fee), seven violations 
of DR 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver to the clients funds or 
property in his possession which the client is entitled to receive), four violations of 
DR 4-101(B)(1) (knowingly revealing a confidence or secret of his client), two 
violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
 
3
administration of justice), and one violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law). 
 
The panel found that after being notified of the grievances referred to in 
Counts One through Four of the amended complaint, respondent failed to 
cooperate with the investigation in violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
 
In addition, the panel found that respondent failed to comply with this 
court’s April 1997 suspension order because he did not surrender his certificate of 
admission to practice law in Ohio and his attorney registration card, and he did not 
notify all of his clients of his suspension and deliver to them their files and money 
by May 5, 1997.  The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated Gov.Bar 
R. V(6)(A)(1) (disobeying an order imposing a suspension from the practice of 
law), DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter), 9-102(A) (failing to segregate 
client funds), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver to the client 
funds or property in his possession which the client is entitled to receive). 
 
The panel finally found that in December 1997, respondent had his name 
changed to “Gary H. Ellison” and failed to notify either the Clerk of the Supreme 
Court or the board of his name change. The panel found no mitigating 
circumstances.  The panel recommended that respondent be permanently 
disbarred. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
__________________ 
 
Thomas R. Smith, David C. Wagner and Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Absent any mitigating circumstances, appropriation of client funds and 
 
4
a pattern of neglecting client interests warrant disbarment.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Armon (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 497, 499-500, 678 N.E.2d 1371, 1373.  Given the 
number of these incidents, the lack of any mitigating evidence, as well as 
respondent’s failure to comply with our suspension order and cooperate in the 
disciplinary investigation, disbarment is the only appropriate sanction here.  
Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  
Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.