Case Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sheftel

Citation: 2002-Ohio-326

Docket Number: 20011134

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-01-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sheftel, 94 Ohio St.3d 137, 2002-Ohio-326.] 
 
 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHEFTEL. 
[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sheftel (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 137.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Failing to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 01-1134 — Submitted September 19, 2001 — Decided January 16, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-43. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On August 9, 1999, relator, Mahoning County Bar 
Association, filed a complaint charging respondent, Lynn Sheftel of Youngstown, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0040040, with violating several Disciplinary 
Rules.  Respondent initially failed to answer the complaint, despite his assertion 
to relator’s counsel that a response would be forthcoming.  On May 22, 2000, 
relator filed a motion for default.  Three days later, respondent’s counsel filed a 
motion for leave to answer complaint instanter, attributing respondent’s failure to 
timely respond to unforeseen marital and familial circumstances.  The motion for 
leave was granted, and an answer was filed. 
 
The matter was set for hearing before a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”).  
However, the parties subsequently waived that hearing, agreeing to have the 
matter decided on stipulated facts to be submitted to the panel. 
 
On June 4, 2001, the following relevant facts were stipulated by the 
parties: 
 
In 1995, while respondent was employed by Hyatt Legal Services 
(“Hyatt”), he was assigned to incorporate a not-for-profit corporation called “KO 
Drugs Boxing Academy” (the “Academy”).  In February of the following year, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
the articles of incorporation were filed with the Ohio Secretary of State, and its 
corporate status was approved in May 1996. 
 
After the incorporation was approved by the state, the Internal Revenue 
Service (“IRS”) required additional forms and financial information in order to 
secure the nonprofit status of the corporation for federal tax purposes.  The IRS 
also required changes to the articles of incorporation that would necessitate 
refiling the articles with the Secretary of State. 
 
Respondent alleged that during his employment with Hyatt, there were 
communication difficulties with the Academy and that  he was unable to get the 
requested financial information from his clients.  Consequently, respondent filed 
nothing further. 
 
Respondent left the employment of Hyatt approximately one week after 
the most recent IRS correspondence.  It was respondent’s understanding at the 
time of his departure from Hyatt that the Academy file would be reassigned 
within the Hyatt office per previous practice.  Respondent claims that when he left 
the Hyatt office, he left behind all Hyatt files, including the Academy file, and 
that he did not retain any documents regarding its incorporation or nonprofit 
status with the IRS.  His clients, however, alleged that they were advised that 
respondent had retained the file. 
 
Respondent acknowledged that he received correspondence from relator’s 
certified grievance committee regarding the Academy matter and that he did not 
provide any written response to the initial grievance.  Respondent later received 
correspondence from an investigator for the committee and likewise failed to 
respond to those letters.  Subsequently, respondent spoke with the investigator 
about the allegations against him and advised the investigator that he would 
respond, but again failed to do so. 
 
In mitigation, respondent asserted a series of unforeseen events occurring 
during the relevant period from 1995 through 2000.  During that time, respondent 
January Term, 2002 
3 
was experiencing serious marital difficulties with concomitant financial strain.  
He was also immersed in the circumstances associated with the prolonged illness 
and eventual death of his elderly stepfather and the debilitating effects on 
respondent’s mother physically, emotionally, and financially.  Respondent 
attributed his failure to cooperate in the investigation to these events. 
 
The panel’s findings of fact mirrored those stipulated by the parties.  It 
concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the claimed violations of 
DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), DR 6-101(A)(3)1 (a lawyer shall not neglect 
an entrusted legal matter), DR 7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a 
contract of employment), DR 9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete 
records and render appropriate accounts to the client), and DR 9-102(B)(4) (a 
lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client items that the client is entitled to 
receive).  Those claims were accordingly dismissed.  The panel did find, however, 
that respondent failed to cooperate with the relator’s investigation, in violation of 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
 
The panel then took into account claimant’s mitigating factors and 
recommended a sanction of public reprimand.  It wrote: 
 
“Taking all of the facts of this matter into consideration, as well as the 
mitigating factors, and in particular the fact that this is an isolated occurrence, 
which seems unlikely to be repeated, the Panel hereby recommends a sanction of 
public reprimand.  In making this recommendation, the Panel notes that it is 
somewhat ironic that the conduct which originally gave rise to the grievance in 
question has not been found, ultimately, by either the Relator or this Panel, to 
constitute a violation of any disciplinary rules.  The only actionable conduct 
which remains is the Respondent’s failure to cooperate in the investigation by the 
                                                          
 
1.  Erroneously recorded in the the panel’s report as DR 6-101(A)(4). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Relator.  The Panel clearly finds the actionable conduct to be substantially 
mitigated by the mitigating factors previously cited herein.” 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
 
We, in turn, adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
board.  Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Wm. Scott Fowler and Richard T. Bush, for relator. 
 
Lynn Sheftel, pro se. 
__________________