Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Novak

Citation: 2006-Ohio-3823

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Novak, 110 Ohio St.3d 134, 2006-Ohio-3823.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. NOVAK. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Novak, 110 Ohio St.3d 134, 2006-Ohio-3823.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, 
dishonesty, or misrepresentation — Neglecting entrusted legal matter — 
Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation — Failure to disclose 
to client attorney’s failure to carry professional liability insurance — 
Two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2006-0080 — Submitted March 15, 2006 — Decided August 9, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-026. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Lawrence J. Novak of Lancaster, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0039794, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1988. 
{¶ 2} On May 27, 2004, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged 
respondent in an amended four-count complaint with professional misconduct.  A 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the 
cause, including the parties’ comprehensive stipulations, respondent’s testimony, 
and the testimony of respondent’s psychotherapist.  The panel made findings of 
misconduct, which the board adopted, and a recommendation, which the board 
modified. 
Count I 
{¶ 3} In August 2000, respondent represented Andrew J. Ruyf in a 
domestic relations dispute in Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas.  In 
October 2002, Ruyf paid respondent $1,100 to file an appeal on his behalf.  
Respondent negotiated Ruyf’s check in November 2002, never filed the appeal, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
and despite offers to do so, did not repay Ruyf’s money.  He also falsely told Ruyf 
more than once that he had filed the appeal. 
{¶ 4} Respondent also failed to advise Ruyf that he did not carry 
professional liability insurance.  Moreover, after Ruyf filed a grievance with 
relator, respondent did not reply to relator’s letter of inquiry. 
{¶ 5} For his neglect, dishonesty, and other misdeeds in Ruyf’s case, the 
board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-104 (requiring a 
lawyer to notify clients that the lawyer does not maintain professional liability 
insurance), 6-101 (A)(3) (prohibiting neglect of an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to seek the lawful 
objectives of his client through reasonably available and lawful means), 7-
101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to carry out a contract 
of employment for professional services), 7-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
intentionally causing a client prejudice or damage), and 9-102(E)(1) (requiring a 
lawyer to maintain client funds in an interest-bearing trust account), as well as 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate in an investigation of 
misconduct). 
Count II 
{¶ 6} Chestnut Investment, Inc. (“Chestnut”) filed a small-claims action 
in the Fairfield County Municipal Court that was later transferred to the regular 
municipal court docket.  In September 2002, respondent filed a notice of 
appearance on Chestnut’s behalf.  In early 2003, after the matter had been 
continued twice, the municipal court set a trial date for March 27, 2003. 
{¶ 7} When the court scheduled the March 27 trial, respondent knew that 
he was scheduled to appear in another case and courtroom on March 26 and 
March 27, 2003.  Respondent told Chestnut’s president that he would not be 
January Term, 2006 
3 
available for the trial.  Respondent did not advise opposing counsel in the 
Chestnut case or the court of the conflict, however, until the trial was about to 
begin. 
{¶ 8} The defendant in the Chestnut case later filed motions to compel 
discovery and to dismiss and a motion for sanctions.  The court set a hearing on 
the motions for July 18, 2003.  Neither respondent nor his client appeared at the 
July 18 hearing.  In October 2003, the municipal court granted the defendant’s 
motion for summary judgment against Chestnut and imposed sanctions on 
respondent and his client in the amount of $948.75. 
{¶ 9} Respondent had not paid the judgment as of the panel’s hearing 
date.  Moreover, respondent never advised this client that he did not carry 
professional liability insurance. 
{¶ 10} For his inattention and other neglect in the Chestnut case, the board 
found respondent in violation of DR l-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting 
conduct that adversely reflects upon the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 1-104, 
and 7-l01(A)(3). 
Count III 
{¶ 11} Jeffrey A. Orrender hired respondent in June 2002 to represent him 
in a child-custody and support case.  Respondent also failed to advise Orrender 
that he did not carry professional liability insurance. 
{¶ 12} Orrender filed a grievance against respondent in November 2003.  
Relator investigated the grievance, and in December 2003, respondent received 
two letters of inquiry.  He did not reply to either letter. 
{¶ 13} For respondent’s failings with respect to Orrender, the board found 
him in violation of DR 1-104 and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count IV 
{¶ 14} Steven C. Kloogh hired respondent to defend him against a civil 
complaint filed in Fairfield County Municipal Court.  After respondent filed an 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
answer, a counterclaim, and a jury demand, the parties negotiated a settlement and 
on November 25, 2002, filed a judgment entry disposing of the case. 
{¶ 15} Kloogh later solicited respondent’s help in making sure that the 
plaintiff complied with the terms of the settlement agreement.  In May 2003, 
respondent promised to file a motion to enforce the settlement, but he never did.  
In November 2003, respondent told Kloogh that “something must have happened 
at the court with the first motion” and promised to file another one.  He did not. 
{¶ 16} After attempting repeatedly to reach respondent from December 
2003 through March 2004, Kloogh finally learned on his own that respondent had 
not filed any motions on his behalf.  Kloogh has since asked respondent 
repeatedly to return his files, but respondent has ignored these requests. 
{¶ 17} In April 2004, Kloogh filed a grievance against respondent.  
Relator investigated the grievance and sent respondent two letters of inquiry, 
which respondent received.  He did not reply to either letter. 
{¶ 18} For his neglect, dishonesty, and other misdeeds in Kloogh’s case, 
the board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-l02(A)(5), 6-
l0l(A)(3), 7-l0l(A)(1), 7-l0l(A)(2), and 9-l02(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer to 
promptly deliver to the client requested property to which the client is entitled), 
and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 19} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
board weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors of his case, including his 
diagnosis in 2003 with major depression.  See Section 10 of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 20} In mitigation, the board found that respondent had no prior record 
of disciplinary sanctions.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  Moreover, although 
respondent had initially failed to respond to relator’s investigative inquiries, he 
January Term, 2006 
5 
had eventually become forthcoming and cooperative, contritely conceding his 
misconduct during the panel hearing.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d).  The board 
further found that respondent, a sole practitioner since 1998, has hired a secretary,  
and is now more conscientiously representing his clients with the help of new 
office equipment and the secretary.  He now also advises clients that he lacks 
malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 21} Respondent’s therapist, Christopher Grant Russell, who is a 
licensed independent social worker trained in psychotherapy, diagnosed 
respondent’s depression.  Russell also holds an MBA from Harvard University.  
Russell met with respondent from November 2003 through April 2004 and 
reported that respondent’s depression may have started as early as two years 
previously.  He testified that respondent’s was a “moderate to severe level of 
depression” and “contributed in a major way” to the circumstances of the charged 
misconduct inasmuch as respondent was unable to focus or concentrate and was 
prone to procrastination in his work.  Russell testified, however, that respondent 
has benefited both from counseling and from Russell’s experience in business 
management, that respondent is now successfully managing his condition, and 
that respondent’s depression is in remission.  The board found this testimony 
particularly mitigating because it helped to explain why respondent had not 
answered relator’s letters of inquiry.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶ 22} The board found as an aggravating factor that respondent’s 
misconduct involved a pattern of misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c). 
{¶ 23} Relator advocated a two-year suspension from the practice of law, 
with one year of the suspension stayed on the condition that respondent serve a 
monitored probation.  Respondent proposed a six-month suspension. 
{¶ 24} The panel recommended a two-year suspension, with a stay of the 
second year on the conditions that respondent pay $1,100 in restitution to Ruyf 
and pay $948.75 in restitution to his client in the Chestnut case.  The board 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
adopted this recommendation and further recommended the conditions that 
respondent permit a monitoring attorney, appointed by relator, to oversee his 
practice for the first six months of the stayed portion of the suspension and that he 
make full restitution within 30 days of the final order in this case.  The parties did 
not object to this recommendation. 
Review 
{¶ 25} We agree that respondent violated DR l-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-
102(A)(6), 1-104, 6-101(A)(3), 7-l0l(A)(1), 7-l0l(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), 9-
102(E)(1), and 9-l02(B)(4), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), as found by the board.  We 
further agree that the board’s recommended sanction, which implicitly 
incorporates a probationary period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), is appropriate. 
{¶ 26} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for two years; however, the second year of the suspension is stayed on the 
conditions that respondent (1) be placed on probation and permit a monitoring 
attorney appointed by relator to oversee his practice for the first six months of the 
one-year stayed suspension and (2) pay $1,100 in restitution to Ruyf and $948.75 
in restitution to his client in the Chestnut case, with interest at the judgment rate, 
within 30 days of our order.  If respondent violates the conditions of the stay or 
probation, the stay will be lifted and respondent shall serve the entire two-year 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Lawrence J. Novak, pro se. 
______________________