Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Bednarski

Citation: 2017-Ohio-522

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-02-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Bednarski, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-522.] 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-522 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. BEDNARSKI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. Bednarski, Slip Opinion No.  
2017-Ohio-522.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to provide competent representation and failing to deposit 
advance legal fees into a client trust account—Two-year suspension, with 
six months stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2015-0243—Submitted January 11, 2017—Decided February 16, 2017.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2014-094. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Holly Lynn Bednarski of Barberton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0077231, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2004. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} On December 15, 2014, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a 
complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, now 
known as the Board of Professional Conduct, charging Bednarski with professional 
misconduct in two separate client matters.  Because Bednarski did not answer the 
complaint or respond to a show-cause order, we imposed an interim default 
suspension under Gov.Bar R. V(14)(B)(1) on March 13, 2015.  142 Ohio St.3d 
1209, 2015-Ohio-886, 28 N.E.3d 113.  After Bednarski responded to an order to 
show cause why her interim default suspension should not be converted to an 
indefinite suspension, we remanded the matter to the board for consideration of 
mitigation evidence only.  144 Ohio St.3d 1402, 2015-Ohio-4800, 41 N.E.3d 442. 
{¶ 3} Bednarski is deemed to have committed the charged ethical violations 
by virtue of her default and failure to timely move this court for leave to answer the 
charges against her.  See Gov.Bar R. V(14)(A) and (C).  After a hearing at which 
Bednarski testified and admitted her misconduct, a panel of the board 
recommended that she be suspended from the practice of law for two years with the 
final six months stayed on the condition that she engage in no further misconduct.  
In addition, the panel recommended that Bednarski receive no credit for the time 
served under her interim default suspension, submit to an evaluation conducted by 
the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and comply with all 
recommendations flowing from that evaluation, make restitution to one client, 
complete 12 hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) in law-office 
management, and serve two years of monitored probation upon her reinstatement 
to the practice of law. 
{¶ 4} The board adopted the panel’s findings and recommended sanction 
but also suggested that compliance with the panel’s suggested OLAP, restitution, 
and CLE requirements be imposed as conditions of the stay.  We adopt the board’s 
report in its entirety and suspend Bednarski from the practice of law for two years 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
with the final six months stayed on conditions and with no credit for time served 
under her interim default suspension. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 5} David Jones Jr. retained Bednarski to represent him in an appeal of a 
criminal conviction and paid her a flat fee of $1,500.  Bednarski did not maintain a 
client trust account, did not enter a written fee agreement with Jones, and did not 
notify him in writing that if she did not complete the representation he may be 
entitled to a refund of all or part of the fee.  She also failed to have Jones sign an 
acknowledgment that she did not carry professional liability insurance.  After 
entering an appearance in the appeal and requesting an extension of time for filing 
the brief, Bednarski did not respond to Jones’s numerous attempts to contact her.  
She also failed to file a brief on Jones’s behalf, and the appeal was dismissed for 
lack of prosecution.  Consequently, the stay of Jones’s sentence pending appeal was 
lifted and he was ordered to report to the adult parole authority to commence his 
sentence. 
{¶ 6} Bednarski’s conduct is deemed to have violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 
(requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client), 1.3 (requiring 
a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(1) 
(requiring a lawyer to inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect 
to which the client’s informed consent is required), 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to 
reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives 
are to be accomplished), 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), 1.4(c)  
(requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not maintain professional 
liability insurance and obtain a signed acknowledgment of that notice from the 
client), 1.5(d)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from charging a flat fee without 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
simultaneously advising the client in writing that the client may be entitled to a 
refund of all or part of the fee if the lawyer does not complete the representation), 
and 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit advance legal fees and expenses into a 
client trust account, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or 
expenses incurred) as alleged in relator’s complaint. 
Count Two 
{¶ 7} Kacee Rae Moser retained Bednarski to defend her against a felony 
charge and a subsequent misdemeanor charge for conduct that allegedly occurred 
while she was released on bond to house arrest.  Moser paid Bednarski $1,360 for 
the representation, but there was no written fee agreement.  Bednarski did not have 
a client trust account and did not carry professional liability insurance.  Nor did she 
have Moser sign a notice that she may be entitled to a refund of all or part of the 
fee if Bednarski failed to complete the representation.  Bednarski successfully 
defended the misdemeanor charge, but due to a breakdown in communication 
before a jury trial on the felony charge, she informed Moser that she was preparing 
a motion to withdraw from the case.  Although Moser’s new counsel entered an 
appearance in the case, Bednarski never moved the court to permit her to withdraw 
from the representation.  Bednarski’s conduct in this case is deemed to have 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) and 1.15(c) as alleged in relator’s complaint. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 9} The parties stipulated that the applicable aggravating factors include 
a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, a lack of cooperation in the disciplinary 
process, the vulnerability of and resulting harm to the victims of the misconduct, 
and Bednarski’s failure to make $1,515.10 in restitution to Jones (relator did not 
January Term, 2017 
 
5
dispute that Bednarski earned the fee she collected from Moser).  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(B)(3), (4), (5), (8), and (9).  Stipulated mitigating factors include the absence 
of a prior disciplinary record and the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive.  See 
Gov.Bar R. 13(C)(1) and (2). 
{¶ 10} The parties agreed that the appropriate sanction for Bednarski’s 
misconduct is a two-year suspension from the practice of law with no credit for 
time served under the interim default suspension, with additional requirements that 
she (1) submit to an OLAP evaluation and comply with any treatment 
recommendations, (2) pay $100 per month toward restitution, and (3) take at least 
one credit hour of CLE per month during her suspension, with at least 12 hours 
focused on law-office management and three hours focused on professional 
conduct.  The parties also agreed that upon reinstatement, Bednarski should be 
required to serve a one-year period of monitored probation. 
{¶ 11} The panel and board adopted the parties’ stipulated aggravating and 
mitigating factors but also considered additional factors in crafting their 
recommended sanction. 
{¶ 12} Bednarski testified that after her admission to the bar, she practiced 
law with her husband, who assumed primary responsibility for the firm’s 
accounting and books.  But after they divorced, she “could not quite manage to do 
it by [her]self.”  She stated that the bank closed her client trust account 
approximately ten days after she opened it.  Because she was not making enough 
money to support herself, the utilities at her home—where she also had her office—
were shut off.  She began living in her car or with friends and did not always receive 
her mail. 
{¶ 13} Bednarski also testified that while she was married, she was drinking 
four or five drinks—usually whiskey and ginger ale—every day.  This pattern of 
drinking continued following her 2009 divorce until her 2015 hospitalization for 
pancreatitis, which she attributed to her excessive drinking.  However, Bednarski 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
has never been diagnosed or treated for any addiction or mental-health condition.  
Although she agreed during a deposition in the context of this disciplinary 
proceeding that she would contact OLAP, she never did so, because she wanted to 
handle her drinking problem by herself.  While Bednarski admitted that she needs 
professional treatment for her drinking problem, she had not done anything about 
it at the time of her disciplinary hearing and seemed to think that it was under 
control—even though she admitted that she still drinks a couple of glasses of wine 
with dinner. 
{¶ 14} In addition to Bednarski’s untreated drinking problem, her failure to 
cooperate with relator’s investigation was also noted by the board as a factor of 
particular concern.  Moreover, her failure to cooperate continued even after this 
court remanded the matter to the board for consideration of mitigating evidence.  
She failed to participate in a prehearing conference call and failed to fully comply 
with an order issued by the panel chairperson following that conference.  She also 
failed to avail herself of relator’s offer to provide free CLE instruction, failed to 
follow through on her expressed intent to submit a posthearing brief to the panel, 
and admitted that if she were to resume the practice of law, she would need to ask 
for help and become more organized because her biggest problem was that she “had 
no organization whatsoever.” 
{¶ 15} Bednarski’s only character witness—a common pleas court bailiff 
who has known her for approximately 15 years—expressed her belief that 
Bednarski’s disciplinary problems were a consequence of her financial difficulties 
and her focus on “survival.”  She also testified that she had observed positive 
changes in Bednarski’s behavior in the two years preceding the hearing, noting that 
she had gotten healthy, gotten her finances under control, was working, and had a 
stable residence. 
{¶ 16} The panel recommended that Bednarski be suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for two years with no credit for the time served under the 
January Term, 2017 
 
7
interim default suspension order and with the final six months stayed on the 
condition that she have no further disciplinary violations.  Further, the panel 
recommended that she be required to (1) schedule mental-health and substance-
abuse assessments with OLAP within 30 days of this court’s decision, and if OLAP 
determines that treatment is necessary, enter into an OLAP contract for a duration 
to be determined by OLAP and comply with all treatment recommendations, (2) 
pay $100 per month to relator, who will forward the money to her former client 
Jones, until the $1,515.10 in restitution owed to Jones is paid in full, (3) complete 
12 hours of CLE related to law-office management in addition to the requirements 
set forth in Gov.Bar R. X(13), and (4) serve two years of monitored probation with 
a focus on law-office management upon her reinstatement to the practice of law—
rather than the one year recommended by the parties. 
{¶ 17} The board adopted the panel’s recommended sanction of a two-year 
suspension with six months stayed and a two-year period of monitored probation, 
but the board also suggested that the OLAP, restitution, and CLE requirements—
like the requirement that she engage in no further misconduct—be conditions of the 
stay. 
{¶ 18} Both the panel and board recognized that the recommended sanction 
appeared to be more severe than the sanctions this court has imposed in comparable 
cases.  See, e.g., Toledo Bar Assn. v. Stewart, 135 Ohio St.3d 316, 2013-Ohio-795, 
986 N.E.2d 947 (imposing a two-year suspension with the second year stayed on 
conditions for a pattern of misconduct that included failing to provide competent 
and diligent legal representation, failing to hold client property in an account 
separate from the lawyer’s own property, failing to promptly deliver funds or other 
property that a client is entitled to receive, and failing to cooperate in some of the 
ensuing disciplinary investigations); Columbus Bar Assn. v. Williams, 129 Ohio 
St.3d 603, 2011-Ohio-4381, 955 N.E.2d 354 (imposing a two-year suspension fully 
stayed on the conditions that the attorney commit no further acts of misconduct, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
comply with the terms of his OLAP contract, and submit to requests for drug testing 
for misconduct that included failing to file an appellate brief in a criminal matter, 
failing to appear and defend another client at a criminal trial, failing to reasonably 
communicate with clients, and failing to withdraw from representation when the 
attorney’s physical or mental condition materially impaired his ability to represent 
his clients); Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marinelli, 144 Ohio St.3d 341, 2015-Ohio-2570, 
43 N.E.3d 402 (imposing a two-year suspension with the second year stayed on the 
conditions that the attorney execute and comply with an OLAP contract, establish 
a client trust account, comply with all mandatory CLE requirements, provide a 
recommendation from her counselor or OLAP stating that she is competent to 
return to the practice of law, and serve two years of monitored probation for 
misconduct that included failing to file bankruptcy petitions for 20 clients, failing 
to promptly refund unearned fees, and knowingly failing to respond to relator’s 
demands for information); Disciplinary Counsel v. Talikka, 135 Ohio St.3d 323, 
2013-Ohio-1012, 986 N.E.2d 954 (imposing a two-year suspension with one year 
stayed on conditions on an attorney who failed to file documents on behalf of three 
clients, failed to inform two of those clients that their cases had been dismissed, 
failed to refund the unearned portion of his client’s fees, and failed to safeguard 
client funds).  The panel and the board concluded that a greater sanction is 
warranted in this case, however, because Bednarski is “far from ready to resume 
the practice of law,” given her prolonged history of an untreated drinking problem, 
her failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process, her lack of the basic 
organizational skills necessary to handle the financial and management aspects of 
a law practice, her failure to take advantage of relator’s offer of free CLE, and her 
apparent isolation from family and friends. 
{¶ 19} Having thoroughly reviewed the record and considered our 
precedents, we adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and aggravating 
and mitigating factors.  We also agree that a two-year suspension with the final six 
January Term, 2017 
 
9
months stayed on the conditions recommended by the board and with no credit for 
time served under the interim default suspension is the appropriate sanction for 
Bednarski’s misconduct. 
{¶ 20} Accordingly, Holly Lynn Bednarski is suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for two years with the final six months stayed on the conditions that 
she (1) schedule mental-health and substance-abuse assessments with OLAP within 
30 days of this decision and, if OLAP determines that treatment is necessary, enter 
into an OLAP contract for a duration to be determined by OLAP and comply with 
all treatment recommendations, (2) pay $100 per month to relator, who will forward 
the money to her former client Jones, until the $1,515.10 in restitution owed to 
Jones is paid in full, (3) complete 12 hours of CLE related to law-office 
management in addition to the requirements set forth in Gov.Bar R. X(13), and (4) 
commit no further misconduct. 
{¶ 21} Upon reinstatement to the practice of law, Bednarski shall serve two 
years of monitored probation focused on law-office management in accordance 
with Gov.Bar R. V(21).  If Bednarski fails to comply with the terms of the stay, the 
stay will be lifted and she will serve the full two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed 
to Bednarski. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, and 
DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
O’NEILL, J., dissents, and would grant respondent credit for time served 
under interim default suspension. 
_________________ 
Roetzel & Andress and Karen Adinolfi; and Thomas P. Kot, Bar Counsel, 
for relator. 
Holly Lynn Bednarski, pro se. 
_________________