Case Title: Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Pincura

Citation: 1999-Ohio-460

Docket Number: 19982683

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-03-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. PINCURA. 
[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Pincura (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Failing to carry out 
employment contract. 
(No. 98-2683 — Submitted February 10, 1999 — Decided March 31, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-36. 
 
On April 15, 1996, relator, Lorain County Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent, John D. Pincura III of Avon Lake, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0029094, with violating certain Disciplinary Rules. After 
respondent answered, the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) on 
the parties’ joint stipulations. 
 
The panel found that in August 1994, Eleanor Hanna, who was residing in a 
nursing home, retained respondent to represent her in a divorce case.  On behalf of 
Hanna, her mother participated in most of the discussions with respondent.  
Respondent filed an answer for Hanna in the divorce proceeding and negotiated 
with opposing counsel.  Based on discussions with Hanna and her mother, 
respondent believed that he had Hanna’s approval to proceed to settle the case 
under specified terms and guidelines. 
 
Believing that a scheduled contested hearing on March 9, 1995 was just 
another pretrial hearing, respondent appeared without his client or her mother.  At 
the hearing, respondent consented to a proposed judgment entry, which recited 
most of the terms of the agreement that respondent believed had been reached and 
that were, in his mind, in his client’s best interest.  But respondent did not contact 
either Hanna or her mother to discuss the terms of the agreement, which included 
 
2
minor changes.  The trial court entered a final divorce decree based on the 
proposed entry.  Due to an error in his office procedures, respondent did not timely 
forward a copy of the decree to Hanna or her mother. 
 
When Hanna’s mother subsequently inquired about the status of the case, 
respondent advised her about the decree and immediately sent copies to her of all 
relevant documents.  Hanna’s mother then filed a grievance against respondent, 
who fully cooperated with the disciplinary investigation, including admitting that 
he had not notified his client about the divorce hearing, that he had signed the 
divorce decree without consulting his client, and that he had failed to promptly 
inform her about the decree. 
 
In mitigation, the panel found that respondent had practiced law for over 
thirty years, had no prior disciplinary record, and had an excellent reputation for 
honesty, integrity, and good character.  The panel further found that respondent 
cooperated throughout the proceedings, that there were no suspected problems 
concerning respondent’s law office management, that there was no evidence of 
any dishonest or selfish motive by respondent, that respondent made good-faith 
efforts to rectify any unintended consequences, and that he expressed remorse and 
regret for his conduct. 
 
The panel adopted the parties’ joint recommendation regarding a 
Disciplinary Rule violation and sanction, by concluding that respondent’s conduct 
violated DR 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out an employment contract) and that 
respondent should be publicly reprimanded.  The board adopted the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Fauver, Tattersall & Gallagher and John L. Keyse-Walker, for relator. 
 
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
 
3
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  In 
determining the appropriate sanction, we find that respondent’s violation of DR 7-
101(A)(2) constituted an isolated act in a lengthy legal career and that respondent 
fully and promptly cooperated in the disciplinary proceeding.  We find further that 
respondent expressed genuine remorse for his actions, and that there was no 
evidence of quantifiable harm to his client.  Based on the foregoing, we agree with 
the parties and the board that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction.  See 
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Tscholl (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 211, 567 N.E.2d 265 (public 
reprimand for attorney found guilty of neglecting an entrusted legal matter where 
misconduct was isolated act in an otherwise unblemished legal career, client did 
not suffer any permanent loss, attorney expressed remorse, and he fully cooperated 
in disciplinary investigation); see, also, Disciplinary Counsel v. Eisenberg (1998), 
81 Ohio St.3d 295, 690 N.E.2d 1282; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Holtmeier (1991), 
60 Ohio St.3d 50, 572 N.E.2d 683 (isolated misconduct that included violation of 
DR 7-101[A][2] warranted public reprimand).  Respondent is hereby publicly 
reprimanded.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.