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

Citation: 2010-Ohio-5720

Docket Number: 20101201

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sakmar, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5720.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-5720 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SAKMAR. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sakmar,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5720.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to cooperate in disciplinary 
investigation — Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — 
Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice — Two-year 
suspension, partially stayed. 
(No. 2010-1201 — Submitted September 15, 2010 — Decided  
December 1, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-080. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael A. Sakmar of Boardman, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0062443, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1993. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} On October 12, 2009, relator, Mahoning County Bar Association, 
filed a complaint charging respondent with four counts of professional 
misconduct.  Although respondent was served with the complaint on October 17, 
2009, he did not file an answer or otherwise appear in the action.  Therefore, on 
April 20, 2010, relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A 
master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline granted the motion, making findings of misconduct and 
recommending that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 12 
months, serve two years of monitored probation upon his return to the practice of 
law, and be required to complete eight hours of continuing legal education in law-
office management in addition to the continuing-legal-education requirements of 
Gov.Bar R. X.  The board, however, recommends a two-year suspension with one 
year stayed, two years of monitored probation and eight hours of continuing legal 
education in law-office management.  For reasons that follow, we accept the 
board’s recommendation. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In support of its motion for default, relator submitted the affidavits 
of two Youngstown Municipal Court judges and the certified grievance 
committee member assigned to investigate a grievance filed by one of those 
judges.  Based upon those affidavits, the master commissioner and board found 
that from February 2006 to December 2008 respondent had either been tardy or 
failed to appear for numerous hearings before the two municipal court judges and 
that he had once left a hearing early against the judge’s specific instruction to 
remain. 
{¶ 4} As a result of this conduct, respondent was cited in contempt 
multiple times and found guilty of contempt and fined on two separate occasions 
in the Youngstown Municipal Court.  And when respondent failed to appear for a 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
scheduled hearing in August 2007, the judge issued a capias for his arrest but 
withdrew it when respondent paid the $60 capias fee. 
{¶ 5} The master commissioner and board did not expressly make 
factual findings regarding respondent’s failure to cooperate in the resulting 
disciplinary proceeding.  But the affidavit of relator’s attorney investigator 
demonstrates that in January and February 2009, relator sent three separate letters 
to respondent, including one by certified mail, advising him of the grievance and 
asking him to submit a written response.  Having received no response, in April 
2009, relator sent a fourth letter advising respondent that the grievance committee 
would be filing a formal complaint against him.  On April 1 of the following year 
when the investigator executed his affidavit, respondent had not responded to 
relator’s inquiry. 
{¶ 6} The master commissioner and board found that there was clear and 
convincing evidence that respondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a 
lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 3.5(a)(6) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct that is 
degrading to a tribunal), 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a 
disciplinary investigation). 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} 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 Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.   
{¶ 8} Relator has either been tardy or failed to appear on behalf of his 
clients at multiple court hearings.  He has left a proceeding against the presiding 
judge’s express instruction to remain in the courtroom.  Although judges have 
given him ample opportunity to correct this behavior, respondent has failed to do 
so.  This conduct demonstrates a lack of diligence and a profound disrespect not 
only for the tribunal, but also for the other attorneys and parties appearing before 
the tribunal.  It also impedes the efficient administration of justice. 
{¶ 9} Mitigating factors in this case include the absence of a prior 
disciplinary record and the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (b).  In aggravation, however, the master commissioner 
and board found that respondent had engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving 
multiple offenses and had failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), and (e). 
{¶ 10} The master commissioner recommended that the appropriate 
sanction for respondent’s misconduct is a 12-month suspension, two years of 
monitored probation, and eight hours of continuing legal education focusing on 
law-office management.  The board, however, recommends that respondent be 
suspended for two years, with one year stayed. 
{¶ 11} We have previously recognized that neglect of an entrusted legal 
matter coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation 
warrants an indefinite suspension.  E.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gottehrer, 
124 Ohio St. 519, 2010-Ohio-929, 924 N.E.2d 825, ¶ 16; Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269, 2010-Ohio-136, 921 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 10.  In Gottehrer, 
we imposed an indefinite suspension for conduct that violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 
(requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
representing a client),  1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep clients reasonably 
informed about the status of their matters), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to 
comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the 
client), 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or 
collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to 
promptly deliver to the client any funds or other property that the client is entitled 
to receive), and 8.1(b) (prohibiting an attorney from knowingly failing to respond 
to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation) 
and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  Gottehrer, 124 Ohio St. 519, 2010-Ohio-929, 924 
N.E.2d 825, at ¶ 17.  In Gottehrer, however, the record demonstrated not only that 
the attorney had neglected a client matter, but also that his neglect resulted in the 
dismissal of the client’s appeal and economic harm from his retention of an 
unearned fee.  Id. at ¶ 7. 
{¶ 12} At the other end of the spectrum is a case in which we imposed a 
six-month suspension upon an attorney for deliberately disobeying a court order 
then lying to the court about it.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Rohrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 
65, 2009-Ohio-5930, 919 N.E.2d 180.  Id. at ¶ 26, 54.  In mitigation, respondent 
had no prior disciplinary record, displayed a cooperative attitude in the 
disciplinary proceedings, had already had sanctions imposed on him by the 
juvenile court, and had presented evidence attesting to his good character and 
reputation.  Id. at ¶ 32.  Aggravating factors included the attorney’s commission 
of multiple offenses and a selfish or dishonest motive.  Id. at ¶ 34, 36. 
{¶ 13} Another case resulted in a sanction between the two.  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Nicks, 124 Ohio St.3d 460, 2010-Ohio-600, 923 N.E.2d 598.  In Nicks, 
we imposed a stipulated two-year suspension, with 18 months stayed on 
conditions for violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 3.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 8.4(c) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
dishonesty, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h).  Id. at ¶ 8.  The attorney had 
collected fees for a probate matter on two separate occasions without first 
obtaining the court’s approval, retained fees in excess of those approved by the 
court, and failed to file an estate-tax return while retaining the funds his client 
remitted for estate taxes.  Id. at ¶ 4-6.  In a second matter, the attorney was found 
to be in contempt of court for his failure to file an estate distribution report or 
appear at a status conference on the case.  Id. at ¶ 11.  Although the attorney had 
engaged in multiple offenses and failed to make restitution, in mitigation we 
found that he had no prior disciplinary record, had cooperated fully in the 
disciplinary process, and had a chemical dependence that had contributed to his 
misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 15-16, citing BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d) and (i) and 
10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (g).  The attorney had also acknowledged the wrongful 
nature of his conduct and accepted full responsibility for its consequences.  Id. at 
¶ 16. 
{¶ 14} This case is different from two of the three cases cited above.  The 
record does not demonstrate that any of respondent’s clients suffered economic 
harm or prejudice as a result of his tardiness or failure to appear at scheduled 
hearings as they did in Gottehrer.  But respondent engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct by arriving late or failing to attend numerous hearings for various 
clients over a period of several years while the misconduct in Rohrer was a single 
occurrence and the attorney cooperated in the disciplinary proceeding and 
presented evidence in mitigation. 
{¶ 15} The case most comparable to respondent’s tardiness and failure to 
attend scheduled hearings is Nicks, which involved multiple violations of a local 
court rule.  Nicks’s conduct, however, was arguably more egregious than 
respondent’s because he engaged in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, 
or misrepresentation and retained client funds intended to pay estate taxes.  But 
the severity of his misconduct was also tempered by his cooperation in the 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
disciplinary proceedings, acknowledgement of the wrongfulness of his 
misconduct, and his diagnosed chemical dependence. 
{¶ 16} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 
we adopt the board’s recommended sanction of a two-year suspension from the 
practice of law, with the second year stayed on condition of no further violations, 
two years of monitored probation upon respondent’s return to the practice of law, 
and eight hours of continuing legal education in law-office management in 
addition to the continuing-legal-education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X. 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, Michael A. Sakmar is suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for two years, with the second year of the suspension stayed on 
condition of no further violations.  If respondent fails to comply with the 
conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and he will serve the entire two-year 
suspension.  Upon his reinstatement to the practice of law, he shall serve two 
years of monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9) and complete 
eight hours of continuing legal education in law-office management in addition to 
the continuing-legal-education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Ronald E. Slipski and David C. Comstock Jr., for relator. 
______________________