Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Jarabek

Citation: 2009-Ohio-748

Docket Number: 20081768

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-02-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jarabek, 121 Ohio St.3d 257, 2009-Ohio-748.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JARABEK. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jarabek, 121 Ohio St.3d 257, 2009-Ohio-748.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Felony 
conviction—Practicing 
law 
while 
under 
suspension—Two-year 
suspension, partially stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2008-1768 — Submitted November 19, 2008 — Decided  
February 25, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-050. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Timothy J. Jarabek of Lakewood, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0069298, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1998.  
On October 3, 2006, we suspended respondent’s license to practice for an interim 
period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4) upon notice that he had been convicted 
of a felony.  111 Ohio St.3d 1403, 2006-Ohio-5200, 854 N.E.2d 1084. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievance and Discipline now 
recommends that we suspend respondent’s license for two years, with no credit 
for time served on his interim suspension and with the second year stayed upon 
conditions.  The board’s recommendation is based upon findings that respondent 
(1) engaged in illegal conduct resulting in a felony conviction, (2) failed to appear 
at his client’s court appearance, and (3) practiced law in violation of a court order 
and interim suspension.  We agree that respondent violated the Code of 
Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct as found by the 
board and that a suspension of two years, with the second year stayed on 
conditions, is appropriate. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging 
respondent with misconduct arising from his conviction under R.C. 2925.11 for 
the fifth-degree felony of drug possession and his failure to appear at a client’s 
court proceeding while respondent was incarcerated for that offense.1  Relator 
subsequently received another grievance against respondent, alleging that 
respondent, while subject to a court order preventing him from practicing law 
without prior written permission from the court, prepared and filed a motion and 
notice of appearance and that respondent signed another attorney’s name to each 
document.  The parties stipulated that the additional grievance could be heard at 
the same time as the matters in the complaint. 
{¶ 4} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline heard the case and, based on the parties’ stipulations and other 
evidence, made findings of misconduct and a recommendation.  The board 
adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended 
sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} The board found respondent in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) 
(prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 
by reason of his conviction under R.C. 2925.11, and DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him) for failure to appear at 
his client’s court appearance.  Based on the conduct alleged in the additional 
grievance, the board also found respondent in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the 
regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction), 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer 
                                          
 
1.  Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before 
and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 
supersede the Code of Professional Responsibility.   
 
 
January Term, 2009 
3 
from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  We agree that respondent committed these 
violations. 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} In determining the appropriate sanction for respondent’s 
misconduct, we must consider relevant factors, including the duties the lawyer 
violated, the mental state of the lawyer, and sanctions imposed in similar cases.  
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 
N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  We also weigh evidence of the aggravated and mitigating 
factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”), as well as any other relevant factors.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 7} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent has a long 
history of problems with drugs, alcohol, and mental illness, which began during 
his teenage years.  In addition, the board found that respondent has a history of 
apparently unsuccessful efforts at rehabilitation. 
{¶ 8} In mitigation, the board found evidence of circumstances weighing 
in favor of lenience.  Respondent demonstrated a cooperative attitude at the 
hearing, and there is no proof that clients were substantially harmed by his 
conduct.  In addition, the respondent has no prior disciplinary record. 
{¶ 9} Furthermore, the board found that respondent’s chemical 
dependence or mental disability contributed to cause his misconduct.  Respondent 
has also demonstrated remorse for his conduct and is working diligently to change 
his life and conquer his addictions and illness.  Since March 2008, respondent has 
volunteered as a law clerk with the Cleveland agency Towards Employment, 
which assists clients with criminal records, mental health issues, and drug and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
alcohol problems to be able to reenter the work force.  Although he is not 
gainfully employed, respondent has been working for Towards Employment 
nearly full-time. 
{¶ 10} The board also found that respondent is genuinely committed to 
remaining sober and controlling his mental health.  To that end, he is attending 
daily AA meetings, refraining from using drugs or alcohol, and complying with 
the recommended treatments from a clinical psychologist. 
{¶ 11} We adopt the board’s findings. 
{¶ 12} Given these circumstances, we find the board’s recommended 
sanction appropriate.  In Akron Bar Assn. v. Thomas (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 395, 
704 N.E.2d 562, we suspended a lawyer convicted of possession of cocaine with 
intent to distribute for two years and stayed the second year because of his 
demonstrated commitment to drug counseling and rehabilitation.  In Cuyahoga 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lazzaro, 106 Ohio St.3d 379, 2005-Ohio-5321, 835 N.E.2d 367, 
disciplinary proceedings were brought against a lawyer convicted of one count of 
cocaine possession.  We suspended the lawyer, who was already subject to a one-
year stayed suspension prior to his conviction, for two years, with the second year 
suspended on conditions, because we were convinced that he genuinely 
understood how critical his continued sobriety was to his life and hope of 
returning to the practice of law.  Based on respondent’s demonstrated 
commitment to remaining sober and controlling his mental health, a sanction 
similar to those in Thomas and Lazzaro is appropriate here. 
{¶ 13} Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio 
for two years, with no credit given for the time that he has been on interim 
suspension.  The second year of suspension will be stayed provided that 
respondent (1) sign a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program within 
60 days of this order and comply with all the terms of that contract with respect to 
drugs, alcohol, and mental disability; (2) submit to random drug testing; and (3) 
January Term, 2009 
5 
refrain from working either paid or unpaid as a law clerk or paralegal, except 
under the direct supervision of an attorney in full compliance with Gov.Bar R. 
V(8)(G).  If respondent fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay 
will be lifted and respondent will serve the entire suspension of two years. 
{¶ 14} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Timothy J. Jarabek, pro se. 
______________________