Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Balaloski

Citation: 2016-Ohio-86

Docket Number: 2015-1002

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-01-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Balaloski, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-86.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-86 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. BALALOSKI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Balaloski, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-86.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing clients—
Two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2015-1002—Submitted July 7, 2015—Decided January 14, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2014-102. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Daniel Karl Balaloski of Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0068122, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997.  On 
December 15, 2014, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged Balaloski with 
professional misconduct arising out of six separate client matters.  The charges 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
against Balaloski included failing to provide competent representation, failing to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness, failing to keep his clients reasonably 
informed about the status of their legal matters, failing to promptly deliver to a 
client funds the client was entitled to receive, and engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct considered the cause on 
the parties’ amended consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Gov.Bar R. V(16). 
{¶ 3} In the amended consent-to-discipline agreement, Balaloski stipulates 
to the facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct constituted 
five violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable 
diligence in representing a client), four violations of 1.4 (requiring a lawyer to 
reasonably communicate with a client), two violations of 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to 
provide competent representation to a client), and one violation of 1.15(d) 
(requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the client is 
entitled to receive).  The parties agree to the dismissal of six alleged violations of 
8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), four alleged violations of 1.1, four alleged 
violations of 1.15(d), two alleged violations of 1.4, and one alleged violation of 1.3. 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that the applicable mitigating factors include the 
absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, 
Balaloski’s acknowledgement that his actions were improper, his full and free 
disclosure to the board and his cooperative attitude toward proceedings, and his 
good character and reputation.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (2), (4), and (5).  In 
addition, the parties stipulate that Balaloski’s depression contributed to his 
misconduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7).  The parties agree that the applicable 
aggravating factors include that there was a pattern of misconduct and that there 
were multiple offenses.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3) and (4).  Based upon 
Balaloski’s stipulated misconduct and these factors, the parties stipulate that the 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
appropriate sanction for Balaloski’s misconduct is a two-year suspension from the 
practice of law, with the second year stayed on the conditions that Balaloski (1) 
engage in no further misconduct, (2) submit proof, upon applying for reinstatement, 
that he has complied with Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) 
requirements, and (3) upon reinstatement to the practice of law, serve a one-year 
period of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(21)(B). 
{¶ 5} The panel and the board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to Gov.Bar R. V(16) and recommend that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety. 
{¶ 6} In support of this recommendation, the panel referred to Toledo Bar 
Assn. v. Stewart, 135 Ohio St.3d 316, 2013-Ohio-795, 986 N.E.2d 947 (a two-year 
suspension from the practice of law, with the second year stayed on conditions, and 
a one-year period of monitored probation upon reinstatement was the appropriate 
sanction for an attorney who accepted retainers from clients and then failed to 
perform the contracted work, failed to reasonably communicate with the clients, 
failed to return client files and the unearned portion of their fees on termination of 
his representation, and failed to cooperate in several of the resulting disciplinary 
investigations) and Disciplinary Counsel v. Folwell, 129 Ohio St.3d 297, 951 
N.E.2d 775, 2011-Ohio-3181 (a two-year suspension from the practice of law, with 
the second year stayed on conditions, and a one-year period of monitored probation 
upon reinstatement was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who engaged in a 
pattern of misconduct in seven separate client maters). 
{¶ 7} We agree that Balaloski violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4—all 
on multiple occasions—as well as 1.15(d) and, as stated in the parties’ agreement 
and as indicated by the cited precedent, that this conduct warrants a two-year 
suspension from the practice of law, with the second year stayed on the conditions 
agreed to by the parties and recommended by the board.  Therefore, we adopt the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, including the agreed dismissal of certain 
alleged violations. 
{¶ 8} Accordingly, Daniel Karl Balaloski is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law for a period of two years, with the second year stayed on the 
conditions that Balaloski shall (1) not engage in any further misconduct, (2) provide 
proof, upon applying for reinstatement, that he has complied with any applicable 
OLAP requirements, and (3) upon reinstatement, serve a one-year term of 
monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21).  If Balaloski fails to 
comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and Balaloski will 
serve the entire two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Balaloski. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Barbara Petrella, Lori J. Brown, and Alysha Clous, for relator. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., and Christopher J. Weber, for 
respondent. 
_________________