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

Citation: 2015-Ohio-2361

Docket Number: 2014-2146

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-06-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Malvasi, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2361.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-2361 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MALVASI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Malvasi, Slip Opinion  
No. 2015-Ohio-2361.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Failure to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing clients and to keep the clients reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter—Six-month suspension, stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2014-2146—Submitted February 4, 2015—Decided June 18, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2014-002. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Maurus Gavin Malvasi of Girard, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0062757, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1994.  In 
February 2014, relator, the Mahoning County Bar Association, charged him with 
violating the Rules of Professional Conduct for allegedly neglecting a single 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
client matter.  The parties waived a formal hearing and filed stipulations of fact 
and misconduct, in which Malvasi admitted to four disciplinary-rule violations 
and relator agreed to dismiss the remaining charges.  As a sanction, the parties 
jointly recommended that Malvasi serve a stayed six-month suspension, complete 
one year of monitored probation, and attend a law-office-management course.  A 
three-member panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline1 unanimously adopted the parties’ stipulations and their recommended 
sanction.  The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety. 
{¶ 2} Upon our review of the record, we accept the board’s findings and 
agree that the board’s recommended sanction is appropriate in this case. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In July 2011, Jon and Ronda Walters retained Malvasi to represent 
them in an action against the seller of their home and the real estate agent 
involved in the transaction.  The Walterses paid Malvasi a $2,500 retainer, but he 
failed to deposit the money into his client trust account.  Malvasi informed the 
Walterses that he would first attempt to settle the matter but if settlement failed, 
he would file a lawsuit.  Over the next 11 months, however, he failed to contact 
the potential defendants about settlement or file a complaint, and he had little 
contact with the Walterses.  In June 2012, he informed the Walterses that he had 
not yet filed the lawsuit because he could not find an address for the primary 
defendant.  Ronda Walters thereafter gave him a business address for the 
defendant, but Malvasi declined to use it.  In September 2012, Ronda Walters sent 
him a letter by certified mail, and although Malvasi signed for the letter, he later 
could not recall receiving it.  By November 2012, Ronda Walters filed the 
underlying grievance.  Malvasi never filed the complaint. 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
{¶ 4} Malvasi subsequently refunded the Walterses’ $2,500 retainer and 
sent them a letter apologizing for the delay in their case.  The parties stipulated 
and the board found that his conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a 
lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) 
(requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with 
reasonable requests for information from the client), and 1.15(c) (requiring a 
lawyer to deposit into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been 
paid in advance).  We agree with these findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 5} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several 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 BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).2  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  However, because each 
disciplinary case is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B) and may take into account all relevant factors in determining 
which sanction to impose. 
Mitigating and aggravating factors 
{¶ 6} The board found, and we agree, that the following mitigating factors 
are present:  Malvasi has no prior discipline, he did not act with a dishonest or 
selfish motive, he made a good-faith effort to make restitution and rectify the 
consequences of his misconduct, he made full and free disclosures to the 
disciplinary board and had a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, and the 
                                                 
2 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
record includes evidence of good character and reputation.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).  Additionally, the board noted that during his 
representation of the Walterses, Malvasi suffered from health problems, he had 
primary responsibility for the care of his elderly mother, and he was forced to 
move his law office after the building in which he leased space was foreclosed 
upon.  The board determined, and we also agree, that none of the aggravating 
factors listed in the former board regulations are relevant here. 
Applicable precedent 
{¶ 7} The board recommends that we impose a stayed six-month 
suspension and require that Malvasi serve a one-year term of monitored probation 
and complete a law-office-management seminar.  To support its recommended 
sanction, the board cites Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hooks, 139 Ohio St.3d 462, 2014-
Ohio-2596, 12 N.E.3d 1212, Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sherman, 101 Ohio 
St.3d 158, 2004-Ohio-340, 803 N.E.2d 398, and Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 96 
Ohio St.3d 50, 2002-Ohio-2987, 770 N.E.2d 1009. 
{¶ 8} In Hooks, an attorney neglected a single client matter and failed to 
keep that client reasonably informed about the matter.  Hooks at ¶ 6-9.  Only one 
aggravating factor was present, but there were several mitigating factors, 
including that the attorney had no prior discipline, did not act with a dishonest 
motive, and accepted responsibility for his misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 12.  We imposed 
a six-month suspension, all stayed on conditions, including that the attorney 
complete a law-office-management course.  Id. at ¶ 18.  In Sherman, the attorney 
neglected a single client matter and also failed to maintain that client’s funds in a 
separate client trust account.  Id. at ¶ 2-4.  No aggravating factors were present, 
but there were significant mitigating factors, including a lack of prior discipline 
and restitution.  Id. at ¶ 5.  We accordingly imposed a stayed six-month 
suspension.  Id. at ¶ 7.  Finally, in Sebree, the attorney neglected two client 
matters.  We sanctioned him with a six-month suspension, stayed on the 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
conditions that he be monitored for at least one year and that he attend a seminar 
on office-management skills.  Id. at ¶ 9. 
{¶ 9} We agree with the board that the record here is comparable to the 
facts in Hooks, Sherman, and Sebree.  And consistent with those cases, we also 
find that the board’s recommended sanction is the appropriate disposition for this 
case. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 10} Having considered the ethical duties violated, the mitigating 
factors, the absence of any aggravating factors, and the sanctions imposed in 
comparable cases, we adopt the board’s recommended sanction.  Maurus Gavin 
Malvasi is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six months, with the 
entire suspension stayed on the condition that he commit no further misconduct.  
Malvasi shall also serve a one-year term of monitored probation pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(21) and complete a law-office-management seminar approved by 
relator.  Costs are taxed to Malvasi. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
Ronald E. Slipski, Bar Counsel, and David C. Comstock, Bar Counsel, for 
relator. 
Mary L. Cibella, for respondent. 
_________________________