Case Title: Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Masek

Citation: 2016-Ohio-3350

Docket Number: 2015-2003

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-06-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Masek, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3350.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-3350 
TRUMBULL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MASEK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Masek, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-3350.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct—Public 
reprimand. 
(No. 2015-2003—Submitted January 6, 2016—Decided June 14, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2015-045. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Raymond John Masek of Warren, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0041023, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1977.  On 
August 7, 2015, relator, Trumbull County Bar Association, charged Masek with 
professional misconduct after he was retained by a client to handle a wrongful-
termination-of-employment case.  After filing a lawsuit against the client’s former 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
employer, Masek made a $7,000 settlement demand.  A disagreement subsequently 
arose between Masek and his client as to whether Masek had authority to settle the 
client’s case for only a monetary settlement instead of also demanding that the 
client get his job back.  After the client rejected the monetary offer, the former 
employer made a motion to the court to enforce the settlement that Masek had 
tendered.  During a hearing on the motion, Masek requested, and was allowed, to 
withdraw as the client’s attorney. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct considered this cause 
on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Gov.Bar R. V(16). 
{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Masek stipulates to most of 
the facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer withdrawing from representation to take 
steps reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interest).  In addition, the parties 
agree to the dismissal of the alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a 
lawyer to provide competent representation to a client), 1.6(a) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from revealing confidential client information without informed consent), 1.6(c) 
(requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or 
unauthorized disclosure of information related to the representation of a client), and 
1.7(a)(2) (prohibiting representation if a lawyer’s personal interests will materially 
limit the lawyer’s ability to carry out appropriate action for the client). 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that the mitigating factors include the absence of 
a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, Masek’s 
full and free disclosure to the board and his cooperative attitude toward the 
proceedings, the absence of any prejudice or damage to his client, and his 
willingness to accept responsibility for his actions.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), 
(2), and (4).  The parties agree that there are no aggravating factors.  Based on 
Masek’s stipulated misconduct and the mitigating factors, the parties stipulate that 
the appropriate sanction for Masek’s misconduct is a public reprimand. 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
{¶ 5} The panel and the board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to Gov.Bar R. V(16) and recommend that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety.  In support of this recommendation, the parties cited 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Leneghan, 117 Ohio St.3d 103, 2008-Ohio-506, 881 
N.E.2d 1241 (public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who 
failed to either pursue a client’s criminal appeal or properly withdraw from the 
case), Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ballou, 109 Ohio St.3d 152, 2006-Ohio-2037, 
846 N.E.2d 519 (public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who 
failed to appear on his client’s behalf at an eviction proceeding without having 
provided prior written confirmation of his decision to withdraw), and Lake Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Kubyn, 121 Ohio St.3d 321, 2009-Ohio-1154, 903 N.E.2d 1215 (public 
reprimand was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who, upon his discharge 
from employment, failed to take reasonably practicable steps to protect his client’s 
interests and failed to promptly return any unearned portion of his fee).  In addition, 
the panel relied on Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith, 143 Ohio St.3d 436, 2015-Ohio-
2000, 39 N.E.3d 488 (public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for an attorney 
who failed to keep two brothers informed about the status of their respective habeas 
corpus cases and failed to take reasonable steps to protect their interests upon her 
withdrawal from representation). 
{¶ 6} We agree that Masek violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) and, as stated in 
the parties’ agreement and as indicated by the cited precedents, that this conduct 
warrants a public reprimand.  Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline 
agreement, including the agreed dismissal of certain alleged violations. 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, Raymond John Masek is hereby publicly reprimanded 
for his misconduct. 
{¶ 8} Costs are taxed to Masek. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and 
FRENCH, JJ., concur. 
O’NEILL, J., dissents and would dismiss the cause. 
_________________ 
Randil J. Rudloff, for relator. 
Gallagher Sharp, Alan M. Petrov, and Matthew T. Norman, for respondent. 
_________________