Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Wishnosky

Citation: 2000-Ohio-352

Docket Number: 19991921

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-04-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Wishnosky, 88 Ohio St.3d 385, 2000-Ohio-352.] 
 
 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. WISHNOSKY. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Wishnosky (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 385.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Knowingly advancing a 
claim unwarranted under existing law. 
(No. 99-1921 — Submitted January 12, 2000 — Decided April 12, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-55. 
 
In 1993, Hunter Liquid Handling Company retained respondent, David 
Wishnosky of North Royalton, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0042283, for 
assistance in tax matters.  In March 1994, Chester A. Hunter, the sole shareholder 
of the company, died, leaving Emily J. Hunter as his widow.  The company 
stopped doing business in the first half of 1995.  At that time it owed respondent 
$690. 
 
In April 1997, the probate court entered an agreed judgment entry for 
resolution of an insolvent estate in Chester Hunter’s case. 
 
Respondent did not bring an action against the company or present a claim 
against Chester Hunter’s estate.  Instead, in November 1996, respondent filed a 
complaint in the Berea Municipal Court to recover $868.25 for “professional 
services” against Emily Hunter and David Hunter, her son, who had been an 
 
 
2
officer and shareholder of the company.  Respondent had not performed any 
professional services for either Emily Hunter or David Hunter.  In August 1997, 
Emily Hunter paid respondent $250, and the matter was dismissed with prejudice. 
 
On August 10, 1998, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent’s conduct violated three Disciplinary Rules.  The matter 
was considered by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
During the hearing before the board the parties stipulated that by his conduct 
respondent had violated DR 7-102(A)(2) (an attorney shall not knowingly advance 
a claim unwarranted under existing law unless it can be supported by a good faith 
argument to extend, modify, or change the law),  and respondent agreed to make 
restitution to Emily Hunter.  The panel recommended that respondent receive a 
public reprimand.  The board found that respondent had made restitution as 
promised and adopted the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
David M. Levine, for relator. 
 
Mary L. Cibella, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the 
board.  Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
 
 
3
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.