Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Dubyak

Citation: 2001-Ohio-145

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-05-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Dubyak, 92 Ohio St.3d 18, 2001-Ohio-145.] 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DUBYAK. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Dubyak (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 18.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with six months of 
suspension stayed, with credit for time served during interim suspension 
— Conviction for mail fraud. 
(No. 00-2284 — Submitted February 7, 2001 — Decided May 30, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-56. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In 1991, attorney Stuart Banks contacted respondent, Joseph 
Dubyak of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0025054, who represented 
a plaintiff in an action against Nationwide Insurance Company. Banks informed 
respondent that he was able to obtain Nationwide’s inside settlement information 
about respondent’s case that he would forward to respondent in exchange for a 
kickback.  Respondent later learned that Banks had obtained the information from 
Lawrence Seidita, who had received it from Nationwide Claims Adjuster Walter 
D. Hartsock.  Respondent settled his client’s case on the basis of the information 
and paid a $15,000 kickback to Banks.  Banks then shared the kickback with 
Seidita and Hartsock. 
 
In 1999, respondent was again approached by Banks, who again  offered 
inside information on a case in which respondent represented the plaintiff.  
Respondent once again agreed to pay a kickback for the inside information.  
Banks at the time of the agreement was wearing a wiretap in cooperation with law 
enforcement agencies. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
As a result of these activities, the United States charged respondent with 
using United States mail in conspiring to defraud Nationwide in violation of 
Section 1341, Title 18, U.S.Code.  Respondent entered a guilty plea to violating 
Section 371, Title 18, U.S.Code (mail fraud) and was sentenced to imprisonment 
of four months at Oriana House and probation thereafter for two years.  He was 
also sentenced to one hundred fifty hours of community service and required to 
pay an assessment of $100 and a fine of $15,000.  After being informed of the 
felony conviction, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for an 
interim period on May 31, 2000.  In re Dubyak (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 1419, 729 
N.E.2d 389. 
 
On August 7, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a 
complaint alleging that the conduct of respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) 
(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  
Respondent answered that his knowledge of the 1991 incident extended only to 
his discussions with Banks and that the 1999 matter did not proceed beyond an 
agreement.  Respondent denied violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6). 
 
The matter was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”), which held a hearing 
on October 30, 2000.  The panel concluded that respondent’s actions violated DR 
1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6).  The panel noted in mitigation that 
respondent fully cooperated both with federal authorities and in his disciplinary 
proceeding and that he expressed true remorse.  It also noted many letters and 
affidavits submitted by respondent with respect to his good character and 
exemplary life.  The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
January Term, 2001 
3 
practice of law for twelve months with credit for time served since the interim 
suspension.  The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel but 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two 
years with six months of the suspension stayed with credit for time served since 
May 31, 2000, the date of his interim suspension. 
 
On review of the record, we adopt the findings and conclusions of the 
board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for two years 
with six months of the suspension stayed, with credit for time served since May 
31, 2000.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissents because he would suspend respondent for two years 
without credit or stay of any portion of the suspension. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
__________________