Case Title: Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fodal

Citation: 2003-Ohio-5852

Docket Number: 20031075

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fodal, 100 Ohio St.3d 310, 2003-Ohio-5852.] 
 
 
GREENE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. FODAL. 
[Cite as Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fodal, 100 Ohio St.3d 310, 2003-Ohio-5852.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Routinely taking 
clients’ money and providing nothing in return — Failing to assist in 
disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 2003-1075 — Submitted August 26, 2003 — Decided November 19, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, Nos. 01-19, 01-67, and 01-78. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Joe R. Fodal, last known address in Fairborn, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0011515, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1972.  On 
June 13, 2001, we suspended respondent indefinitely from the practice of law 
because he had neglected clients’ cases, had failed to refund unearned fees, and 
did not cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings.  Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fodal 
(2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 99, 748 N.E.2d 1097.1  On February 5, June 11, and August 
13, 2001, respectively, relator, Greene County Bar Association, filed three 
additional complaints charging respondent with numerous new counts delineating 
essentially the same professional misconduct. 
{¶2} 
Respondent received notice of these complaints through certified 
mail, personal service, or, when he did not claim his certified mail, service on the 
Clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  But as in the 
previous disciplinary proceedings against him, respondent did not answer any of 
                                                 
1. 
By that time, respondent’s license had already been placed under an interim suspension 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5a)(B) based on evidence that his continued practice posed a substantial 
risk of harm to the public.  Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fodal (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1519, 747 
N.E.2d 246. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
the three complaints, and relator moved for default in each case pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  Because of the similarity of the complaints, the Chairman of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline consolidated the cases.  
A master commissioner appointed by the board considered relator’s motions and 
the ten counts of misconduct alleged in the first complaint, the 12 counts of 
misconduct alleged in the second complaint, and the four counts of misconduct 
alleged in the third complaint.  The master commissioner then made findings of 
fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation. 
Complaint No. 1 
{¶3} 
With respect to Count I, the evidence substantiates that respondent 
accepted a retainer in May 2000 from Ross C. and Lou Ann Humbarger to 
represent them in an eviction matter.  Respondent never filed the action, did not 
return telephone calls inquiring about the status of the clients’ case, and did not 
refund his clients’ money. 
{¶4} 
Regarding Count II, the master commissioner found that the 
Greene County Probate Court appointed respondent in April 1999 to be the 
executor and attorney for an estate.  On the court’s direction, respondent 
submitted a status report setting forth actions required to complete and close the 
estate.  However, he did not complete the necessary work. 
{¶5} 
With respect to Count III, the master commissioner found that 
respondent accepted a retainer in 1988 to administer another estate in the Greene 
County Probate Court.  Twelve years later, respondent still had not opened the 
estate.  In April 2000, the court ordered respondent to appear, and respondent 
promised to  administer the estate promptly.  He failed to do so. 
{¶6} 
Regarding Count IV, the master commissioner found that 
respondent accepted $400 in March 1999 from Holly J. Cantrell to represent her 
in bankruptcy proceedings.  Respondent never filed the action, nor did he return 
Cantrell’s money. 
January Term, 2003 
3 
{¶7} 
With respect to Count V, the evidence substantiates that 
respondent accepted a $700 retainer in early 2000 to represent Lou Ann Haley in 
her divorce case.  Respondent never filed the action, nor did he return Haley’s 
money despite her repeated requests. 
{¶8} 
Regarding Count VI, the evidence substantiates that respondent 
accepted $400 of his quoted $600 fee from Anthony S. Wilbik Sr. and promised 
to represent Wilbik’s daughter in her divorce. Respondent failed to file divorce 
papers on the daughter’s behalf and did not respond to Wilbik’s request for a 
refund. 
{¶9} 
With respect to Count VII, the evidence substantiates that 
respondent accepted a retainer in April 1999 from Melissa G. Brown to represent 
her in her divorce.  Respondent never filed the action and only partially refunded 
Brown’s money. 
{¶10} Regarding Count VIII, the evidence substantiates that respondent 
accepted a retainer in June 2000, promising to represent a client in a child-
visitation case.  Respondent took no action on the client’s behalf and did not 
return the retainer as requested. 
{¶11} With respect to Count IX, the evidence substantiates that sometime 
before May 2000, Thelma J. Pross hired respondent to arrange the transfer of her 
deceased daughter’s automobile and to resolve some issues concerning retirement 
benefits for the daughter’s children.  Respondent did not perform as promised and 
did not refund any unearned fees. 
{¶12} Regarding Count X, the evidence substantiates that in October 
1999, respondent represented Jonell Shaw in a domestic relations case.  
Respondent prejudiced Shaw by failing to adequately advise her of the court’s 
final determination or her right to appeal, among other claimed entitlements.  
Afterward, respondent also ignored his client’s efforts to communicate with him. 
Complaint No. 2 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶13} With respect to Count I, the master commissioner found that 
respondent accepted a retainer from Barbara Storms to file bankruptcy on her 
behalf.  Respondent never filed the bankruptcy and did not return the unearned 
fee. 
{¶14} Regarding Count II, the evidence substantiates that Sharon Allen 
retained respondent in 1999 to represent her in a personal injury case.  When 
respondent took no action, Allen requested that he return her file so that she could 
contact another attorney before the statute of limitations on her claim elapsed.  
Respondent did not reply or return the client’s file. 
{¶15} With respect to Count III, the master commissioner found that 
Allan Shapiro retained respondent in early 2000 to defend him on three legal 
matters. To Shapiro’s detriment, respondent did not pay various fines, costs, and 
restitution from the money paid to him for these purposes.  He also failed to 
respond to his client’s numerous attempts to inquire about respondent’s progress. 
{¶16} Regarding Count IV, the master commissioner found that Ronald 
G. Allen retained respondent in October 2000 to pursue custody of his daughter.  
Respondent did nothing in the case and did not refund Allen’s money. 
{¶17} With respect to Count V, the evidence substantiates that Grant 
Kunkle retained respondent in July 2000, paying $575 for respondent to represent 
him in his divorce.  Respondent took Kunkle’s money and took no action on his 
behalf. 
{¶18} Regarding Count VI, the evidence substantiates that Charles H. 
Stump retained respondent in June 1998 to represent him in a bankruptcy 
proceeding.  Respondent did not file the action for his client, and Stump’s wages 
were later garnished.  Respondent also did not refund Stump’s money as 
requested. 
{¶19} With respect to Count VII, the evidence substantiates that Wanda 
M. Fox retained respondent in 1999 to file a lawsuit on her behalf and to prepare 
January Term, 2003 
5 
new wills and a deed.  Respondent apparently prepared the wills, but he did not 
complete the other work as promised and repeatedly failed to answer Fox’s 
requests for information and the return of the deed. 
{¶20} Regarding Count VIII, the evidence substantiates that Regina S. 
Crosley retained respondent in August 2000 to represent her in a criminal case.  
Respondent did not adequately advise Crosley about various proceedings in that 
matter, and she ultimately discharged him.  Respondent did not refund any 
unearned portion of Crosley’s money. 
{¶21} With respect to Count IX, the master commissioner found that 
Nicole Owens retained respondent in August 2000 to represent her in divorce 
proceedings.  He took no action in the case, and he did not refund the tendered 
fee. 
{¶22} With respect to Count X, the master commissioner found that 
Geoffrey T. Hollis retained respondent in January 1997 to file a lawsuit on his 
behalf.  Respondent filed the case, but it was later dismissed for failure to 
prosecute.  Respondent did not refund any unearned fees. 
{¶23} Regarding Count XI, the evidence substantiated that Karen K. 
Philabaum paid respondent $500 to pursue her divorce and prepare her will. 
Respondent did not complete this work, he did not return Philabaum’s telephone 
calls, and he did not refund her money. 
{¶24} With respect to Count XII, the evidence substantiates that Lisa D. 
Stultz paid respondent $300 to initiate child custody proceedings and a medical 
malpractice action.  Respondent did nothing for Stultz and did not refund her 
money. 
Complaint No. 3 
{¶25} With respect to Count I, the master commissioner found that 
Debbra S. Salo retained respondent in May 2000 to pursue an action for back rent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
against a former tenant.  Respondent did not file any action on Salo’s behalf and 
did not return any unearned fees. 
{¶26} With respect to Count II, the evidence substantiates that Billy and 
Barbara Bohannon retained respondent in August 1998 to prepare a will and to 
prepare and record a survivorship deed.  Respondent prepared the will, but if he 
completed the deed, he never filed it.  He also did not refund any of his clients’ 
retainer or return documents that they requested. 
{¶27} With respect to Count III, the evidence substantiates that 
respondent was retained in June 1999 to pursue a claim for the return of personal 
property taken during the repossession of a vehicle.  For nearly two years, the 
clients attempted with little success to remain in contact with respondent and keep 
informed of his progress in the case.  They ultimately learned that he had never 
filed the suit that they had hired respondent to pursue. 
{¶28} Finally, regarding Count IV, the evidence substantiates that 
Samuel James Hamilton retained respondent in 1999 to file a divorce action.  
Although Hamilton paid respondent $500, he never completed the work and did 
not respond to Hamilton’s requests for a refund.  Hamilton later retained another 
attorney to represent him.2 
{¶29} For all of the preceding grievances, the master commissioner found 
respondent in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely 
reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an 
entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of 
employment), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly deliver funds or other 
property belonging to a client).  The master commissioner also found that 
respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  While respondent spoke on the 
                                                 
2. 
Hamilton was also a grievant against respondent in Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fodal 
(2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 99, 748 N.E.2d 1097. 
January Term, 2003 
7 
telephone with relator’s investigator about the complaints, he did not submit 
answers to any of relator’s letters of inquiry concerning the grievances. 
{¶30} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the master 
commissioner considered mitigating and aggravating factors pursuant to Section 
10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  As a 
mitigating feature, the master commissioner relied on relator’s representation that 
respondent had formerly served as a municipal judge and had previously enjoyed 
a good reputation in his local bar as a qualified and able practitioner.  As 
aggravating features, the master commissioner found that respondent’s license is 
under an indefinite suspension and that he committed multiple offenses 
establishing a pattern of misconduct.  In addition, respondent has failed to 
acknowledge the wrongfulness of his misconduct and has failed to make 
restitution to his victims. 
{¶31} The master commissioner recommended, consistent with relator’s 
suggestion, that respondent be disbarred.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶32} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 
6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(4), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  We also 
agree that respondent should be disbarred.  Respondent routinely took his clients’ 
money and provided nothing in return.  In the absence of any compelling 
mitigating evidence, the sanction for this misconduct and his disregard of the 
disciplinary process is disbarment.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Foster, 97 Ohio St.3d 
292, 2002-Ohio-6415, 779 N.E.2d 755, ¶ 13. 
{¶33} Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
David R. Miles and Paul W. Barrett, for relator. 
__________________