Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Verbiski

Citation: 1999-Ohio-244

Docket Number: 19990835

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-09-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Verbiski, 86 Ohio St.3d 627, 1999-Ohio-244.] 
 
 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. VERBISKI. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Verbiski (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 627.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Violating a 
Disciplinary Rule — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law — Failing to seek lawful objectives of client — Failing to 
promptly pay, upon request, funds in possession that client is entitled to 
receive — Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation — Failing to 
comply with continuing legal education requirements. 
(No. 99-835 — Submitted July 28, 1999 — Decided September 22, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-54. 
 
In October 1994, Simon Pyasik paid respondent, Laura Verbiski of North 
Olmsted, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0034338, $1,100, including a retainer of 
$950, to represent him in a domestic relations matter.  Respondent filed a 
complaint for divorce on behalf of Pyasik in the Cuyahoga County Court of 
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.  Despite being notified by the court 
that the case would be dismissed for want of prosecution if service was not 
perfected by May 1995, respondent never perfected service, and the court 
dismissed the case and assessed costs against Pyasik.  On April 17, 1996, after 
Pyasik expressed dissatisfaction to respondent about her representation, respondent 
agreed that she would make “demonstrable progress toward[s] the resolution of 
[Pyasik’s] marital problem or return the $950.00 retainer fee.”  Respondent did not 
refund any money to Pyasik. 
 
Pyasik filed a grievance against respondent with relator, Cleveland Bar 
Association.  Respondent failed to respond to relator’s letters and did not otherwise 
communicate or cooperate with relator and its investigator. 
 
2 
 
Respondent failed to register for active status with the Clerk of the Supreme 
Court of Ohio for the 1993-1995, 1995-1997, and 1997-1999 biennial attorney 
registration periods.  Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A).  Effective July 1998, we suspended 
respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for failing to comply with the 
continuing legal education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X.  82 Ohio St.3d 1456, 
696 N.E.2d 215.  Respondent failed to comply with the terms of our July 1998 
order, which prohibited her from practicing law while under suspension. 
 
In January 1999, relator filed an amended complaint charging respondent 
with violating Disciplinary Rules and Rules for the Government of the Bar.  The 
matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) upon the parties’ stipulated findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation. 
 
The panel found the facts as previously set forth and concluded that by her 
conduct, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(1) (violating a Disciplinary Rule), 1-
102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to practice 
law), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek lawful objectives of client), 9-102(B)(4) (failing 
to promptly pay, upon request, funds in possession of lawyer that client is entitled 
to receive), Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation), 
and Gov.Bar R. VI(6)(B) (engaging in practice of law during summary suspension 
from practice of law for failing to register). The panel recommended, in 
accordance with the parties’ stipulated sanction, that respondent be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio and that she immediately refund to 
Pyasik $950 plus statutory interest from April 17, 1996.  The board adopted the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Benesch, Freidlander, Coplan & Aronoff, L.L.P., and Joseph N. Gross; 
Wilsman & Schoonover and Joseph S. Simms, for relator. 
 
3 
 
Laura Verbiski, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board except for 
its conclusion that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. VI(6)(B) because respondent 
was never suspended from the practice of law for failing to register under that rule.  
Instead, we suspended respondent from the practice of law under Gov.Bar R. X for 
failing to comply with continuing legal education requirements. 
 
Nevertheless, we adopt the board’s recommended sanction.  Neglect of legal 
matters and a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation 
generally warrant an indefinite suspension.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Boykin (1998), 
82 Ohio St.3d 100, 694 N.E.2d 899.  Similarly, respondent’s failure to seek 
Pyasik’s lawful objectives by failing to perfect service of his divorce complaint, 
resulting in dismissal, and her failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary 
investigation coupled with her failure to timely refund the money to Pyasik, 
warrant an indefinite suspension and an order for respondent to repay the unearned 
portion of the retainer given by Pyasik.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio, and she is ordered to immediately pay 
Pyasik $950 plus statutory interest from April 17, 1996.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.