Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Lombardi

Citation: 2002-Ohio-2990

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-07-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lombardi, 96 Ohio St.3d 54, 2002-Ohio-2990.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LOMBARDI. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lombardi, 96 Ohio St.3d 54, 2002-Ohio-2990.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with eighteen months 
stayed — Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice — Advancing or guaranteeing financial assistance to client while 
representing client in connection with contemplated or pending litigation 
— Counseling or assisting client in illegal or fraudulent conduct — 
Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failing to promptly deliver funds 
or property to which client is entitled. 
(No. 2002-0325 — Submitted April 10, 2002 — Decided July 3, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-37. 
__________________ 
 
PER CURIAM. 
{¶1} 
In April 1997, DeAnna Kidwell engaged respondent, Marcus M. 
Lombardi of Akron, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0042349, to represent her in 
matters involving the custody of her granddaughter.  On July 14, 1997, at a 
hearing attended by respondent but not by Kidwell, the Summit County Juvenile 
Court removed the granddaughter from Kidwell’s custody because Kidwell had 
failed to follow the recommendations of the Summit County Children’s Services 
Board (“CSB”), which had placed the granddaughter with Kidwell. 
{¶2} 
After respondent informed Kidwell of the court’s decision and told 
her that if she did not follow the court’s order she could be held in contempt, 
Kidwell left the state with the granddaughter.  Kidwell and the child remained out 
of state from October 1997 through March 1999, during which time respondent 
sent her a total of $130,000 for support.  Respondent obtained the money from 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
credit card loans, from his retirement funds, and from loans from his parents and 
friends.  During this same period, respondent was in almost daily contact with 
Kidwell and personally met her on at least four occasions. 
{¶3} 
Prior to and during these eighteen months, respondent was married 
and had four children.  His gross income from his practice of law was between 
$30,000 and $40,000 a year, and that, together with his wife’s income of $45,000 
to $50,000, supported the family.  In attempting to explain why he neglected his 
family and used his own money and money he borrowed from others to support 
Kidwell, respondent said that he believed that Kidwell’s granddaughter had been 
sexually abused while in her mother’s custody and that if they returned to Ohio, 
the child would be returned to its mother.  He said that he became emotionally 
involved in the granddaughter’s case.  There was no romantic relationship 
between respondent and Kidwell. 
{¶4} 
In March 1999, Kidwell was arrested in Pennsylvania.  When she 
was returned to Summit County and incarcerated, respondent raised $20,000 to 
post a $200,000 bond on her behalf. 
{¶5} 
Kidwell pleaded not guilty to charges of kidnapping and 
interference with custody, and respondent defended her at trial.  In June 1999, 
Kidwell terminated respondent’s representation and obtained other counsel, and 
respondent withdrew from the case.  In August 1999, Kidwell pleaded guilty to 
interference with custody, and the kidnapping charge was dismissed. 
{¶6} 
In September 1999, Kidwell was fined and sentenced to serve five 
years of community control sanctions.  She violated the conditions of those 
sanctions and in December 1999 was sentenced to a year in prison. 
{¶7} 
In August 1997, respondent, acting as custodian and cocounsel, 
settled a personal-injury case for his minor son, Nathan.  He deposited the 
settlement check in his client trust account, paid cocounsel from the one-third 
contingency he was taking in the case, and loaned most of the son’s settlement 
January Term, 2002 
3 
funds to Kidwell.  Although respondent and his wife agreed that respondent 
should undertake the case for his son, respondent did not obtain probate court 
approval for his retention as his son’s counsel or for his fee agreement with his 
son, nor did he obtain court approval of either the settlement or the disbursement 
of the settlement proceeds. 
{¶8} 
Pursuant to an agreement in his divorce proceedings, respondent 
established an account for his son and returned the money he owed to him in the 
fall of 2000. 
{¶9} 
On April 9, 2001, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent’s conduct violated several provisions of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  Respondent answered, and the matter was referred to 
a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court. 
{¶10} Based on the stipulations of the parties and evidence received at a 
hearing on October 22, 2001, the panel concluded that by assisting Kidwell while 
knowing that his assistance would enable her to evade a court order, respondent 
had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to 
the administration of justice), 5-103(B) (while representing a client in connection 
with contemplated or pending litigation a lawyer shall not  advance or guarantee 
financial assistance to the client except expenses and costs of the litigation with 
repayment contingent on the outcome of the matter), and 7-102(A)(7) (a lawyer 
shall not counsel or assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows to be illegal or 
fraudulent).  The panel further found that by transferring his son’s settlement 
funds to Kidwell, by failing to obtain the appropriate probate court approvals, and 
by delaying repaying money to his son’s account, respondent violated DR 6-
101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter) and 9-102(B)(4) 
(a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client funds or property to which the client 
is entitled). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
{¶11} The panel received mitigation evidence from character witnesses, 
and noted that respondent had no prior disciplinary complaints filed against him 
and that he had cooperated in the investigation.  The panel further found that 
although respondent’s explanations furnished understandable reasons for his 
conduct, they did not explain the magnitude of his financial assistance to Kidwell.  
Despite respondent’s present employment as a public defender and the panel’s 
recognition that he currently provides a valuable service to his clients and the 
community, the panel believed that because he had assisted a client in violating 
the law, respondent should be suspended for a definite period.  The panel 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two 
years with eighteen months stayed. 
{¶12} The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation 
of the panel. 
{¶13} On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice 
of law for two years with eighteen months stayed.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents because he would stay the entire two-year suspension. 
 
COOK, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Charles W. Kettlewell and Charles J. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
__________________