Case Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Polke

Citation: 2012-Ohio-5852

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-12-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Polke, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5852.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-5852 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. POLKE. 
IN RE REINSTATEMENT OF POLKE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Polke,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5852.] 
Attorney misconduct—Multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules—Suspension 
stayed on conditions. 
(Nos. 2008-1708 and 2012-0296—Submitted April 24, 2012—Decided  
December 12, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-031. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Dennis J. Polke of Euclid, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0030896, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1981.  In 
April 2006, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, charged Polke with 
professional misconduct arising from his acceptance of money from clients and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
failure to perform the contracted legal work.  In September of that year, relator 
amended its complaint to allege that Polke had engaged in professional 
misconduct in his representation of two additional clients, that he was suffering 
from a mental illness that may have contributed to his misconduct, and that relator 
had reason to believe that his mental condition impaired his ability to continue 
practicing law. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline assigned to hear the matter ordered Polke to submit to a psychiatric 
examination pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(7)(C).  Based on the evidence 
demonstrating that Polke suffered from a mental illness that substantially 
impaired his ability to practice law, the recommendation of the panel and the full 
board, and the board’s certification of the complaint pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(7)(B)(2) and (D), this court issued an order suspending Polke from the practice 
of law. 
{¶ 3} This matter is now before the court on the board’s certification that 
the cause for Polke’s mental health suspension has been removed, as are the 
parties’ stipulations and the board’s findings of fact and misconduct with regard 
to the underlying disciplinary complaint.  Based on the reports submitted by Polke 
and the independent mental health evaluation completed at the board’s request 
and relator’s acknowledgement that Polke is no longer mentally ill, the board 
recommends that Polke’s mental illness suspension be terminated, pursuant to 
Gov.Bar.R. V(7)(F).  But finding that as of the date of the panel hearing on the 
matter, Polke had not complied with the additional requirements set forth in the 
suspension order, the board stops short of recommending that Polke be permitted 
to resume the practice of law. 
{¶ 4} With regard to the underlying disciplinary complaint, the board 
adopted the parties’ stipulations of fact and found that Polke neglected and 
intentionally failed to carry out contracts of employment in six client matters, 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
failed to promptly deliver funds to which the client is entitled in four of those 
matters, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in two 
of those matters.  Based on these findings, the board recommends that we suspend 
Polke’s license to practice law for one year, with the entire suspension stayed on 
conditions. 
{¶ 5} For the reasons that follow, we adopt the board’s recommendation 
to terminate Polke’s mental illness suspension and adopt the parties’ stipulated 
findings of fact and misconduct. We also impose a one-year suspension of Polke’s 
license to practice law, all stayed on conditions. 
Termination of the Mental Health Suspension 
{¶ 6} In our January 22, 2009 mental health suspension order, we found 
not only that Polke suffered from a mental illness that substantially impaired his 
ability to practice law, but we also (1) taxed the cost of the proceedings to Polke 
and ordered him to pay them within 90 days of the order, adding that any amount 
unpaid after 90 days would accrue interest at the rate of ten percent per annum, 
(2) ordered him to complete one credit hour of continuing legal education 
(“CLE”) for each month, or portion of a month, of his suspension, including one 
credit hour of instruction related to professional conduct required by Gov.Bar R. 
X(3)(A)(1), for each six months, or portion of six months, of the suspension, and 
(3) ordered him to reimburse any amounts awarded against him by the Clients’ 
Security Fund within 90 days of the notice of such award. 
{¶ 7} Polke applied to terminate his mental health suspension pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(7)(F) in October 2010, alleging that the condition or conditions that 
caused his suspension had been removed.  Attached to his application were 
reports from the licensed independent social worker counseling Polke, his treating 
psychiatrist, and a psychologist who had evaluated him. 
{¶ 8} Pursuant to the panel’s order, Polke submitted to a psychiatric 
evaluation, which found that he exhibited no signs or symptoms of mental illness, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
but expressed some reservations about Polke’s ability to safely resume the 
practice of law without a support system to help him establish himself in the legal 
community. 
{¶ 9} Relator concedes that the cause for Polke’s mental health 
suspension has been removed.  However, relator contends that Polke’s application 
to terminate his mental health suspension should be denied because he has not 
fully complied with the conditions imposed in that suspension order.  Specifically, 
relator notes that Polke has not yet paid the costs of the proceeding, reimbursed 
the Clients’ Security Fund for payments made to his former clients, or completed 
the CLE obligation imposed in our order. 
{¶ 10} Relator acknowledges that on June 16, 2010, Polke filed a Chapter 
7 notice of discharge from United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of 
Ohio in this case. See In re Polke, No. 10-11391 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2000)  Relator 
argues, however, that pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(7) and  In re Bertsche, 261 
B.R. 436, 437 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2000), his debts to this court are nondischargeable 
because disciplinary proceedings are similar to criminal proceedings and serve to 
protect the public.  On the other hand, Polke contends that Bertsche is not 
applicable to this case because it emanates from the United States Bankruptcy 
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, while his bankruptcy 
issues from the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.  He further asserts 
that the bankruptcy court possesses original and exclusive jurisdiction over all 
cases under Title 11 of the United States Code and that the time for determining 
the dischargeability of his obligations to this court has expired.  Polke also 
contends that the CLE obligation we have imposed—and his professed inability to 
finance such courses—should not be a “punishment” or “stumbling block” 
preventing his reentry into the profession, but should be a tool to guide him as he 
reenters the profession. 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
{¶ 11} Although Polke has not complied with the financial or CLE aspects 
of his mental health suspension order, it is not now necessary for us to decide the 
effect of his bankruptcy proceeding on his financial obligations to this court under 
his mental health suspension order.  This is true because Gov.Bar R. V(7)(F) 
provides that a mental health suspension “may be terminated on application of the 
respondent to the Board and a showing of removal of the cause for the 
suspension,” and Polke has sustained his burden of proof in that regard. 
{¶ 12} Therefore, we affirm the board’s determination that Polke’s mental 
health suspension should be terminated.  But that does not mean that Polke is 
currently eligible to be reinstated to the practice of law. 
{¶ 13} In addition to the remaining conditions of reinstatement imposed in 
Polke’s mental health suspension order, we note that on June 16, 2008, we 
suspended Polke from the practice of law for his failure to comply with the CLE 
requirements of Gov.Bar R. X.  In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Polke, 
118 Ohio St.3d 1447, 2008-Ohio-2889, 888 N.E.2d 1101.  The CLE requirements 
imposed in Polke’s mental health suspension order mirror the requirements of his 
CLE suspension, which remains in effect.  Polke has not petitioned us to 
terminate that order and cites no legal authority to support his request that this 
court waive the CLE conditions imposed in either his mental health or CLE 
suspension orders based on his claims of penury.  And he testified that the 
Commission on Continuing Legal Education denied his request for an exemption 
from his CLE obligations pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(3)(F)(1)(b) (authorizing the 
Commission on Continuing Legal Education to approve exemptions from the 
CLE requirements of Gov.Bar R. X(3)(A) for an attorney suffering from severe, 
prolonged illness or disability that prevents participation in accredited programs 
and activities for the duration of the illness or disability).  Therefore, we decline 
to waive such requirements at this time. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
The Underlying Disciplinary Complaint 
Findings of Fact and Misconduct 
{¶ 14} In its amended complaint, relator charged Polke with six counts of 
misconduct for accepting retainers from six clients and failing to complete the 
legal services he agreed to provide, failing to refund the unearned portion of his 
fee in four of those cases, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice by failing to appear at scheduled court proceedings in 
two of the matters involving criminal charges against his clients.  Three of the 
affected clients received awards from the Clients’ Security Fund: Gwenda Long, 
who retained Polke to represent her son in a criminal matter, received an award of 
$8,800 on September 4, 2009; Kevin Grimes received an award of $1,000 on 
September 4, 2009; and Juliana Morton received an award of $1,000 on April 22, 
2010—though Polke disputes the necessity for these awards.  And one of Polke’s 
colleagues refunded $500 to client Danielle Gavorski on Polke’s behalf. 
{¶ 15} Based upon the stipulated facts, the parties stipulate, the board has 
found, and we agree that Polke has committed six violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(prohibiting neglect of an entrusted legal matter) and 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment for legal 
services),1 four violations of 9-102(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or 
deliver funds and property to which a client is entitled), and two violations of DR 
1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to 
the administration of justice). 
 
 
                                                 
1 With respect to Count I, the amended complaint alleges and the parties stipulate  that Polke 
intentionally failed to carry out a contract of employment for legal services with respect to Count 
I, but erroneously refer to this as a violation of DR 7-101(A)(1).  And with respect to Count VI, 
the amended complaint alleges that Polke intentionally failed to carry out a contract of 
employment for legal services, but erroneously refers to this as a violation of DR 7-101(B)(3).  
The parties, however, correctly stipulate that Polke’s conduct violates DR 7-101(A)(2). 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 16} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
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. In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 17} As aggravating factors, the parties stipulate and the board has 
found that Polke has a prior attorney-registration suspension, has engaged in a 
pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, and has failed to make 
restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), (d), and (i); In re Attorney 
Registration Suspension of Polke, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 
N.E.2d 671; and In re Attorney Registration Reinstatement of Polke, 108 Ohio 
St.3d 1428, 2006-Ohio-378, 841 N.E.2d 790.  Mitigating factors present include 
the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, the absence of other certified 
complaints, and Polke’s diagnosed mental disability.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (g). 
{¶ 18} Based upon the aggravating and mitigating factors present, and the 
duration of Polke’s mental health suspension, the parties propose that Polke not 
receive any additional sanction for his admitted misconduct.  Despite the fact that 
Polke’s diagnosed mental health condition contributed to the misconduct for 
which he now faces discipline, the board rejected the parties’ notion that “time 
served” under his mental health suspension will suffice.  The board noted that in 
addition to an attorney’s misconduct, the duties violated, the injuries caused, and 
the attorney’s mental state, the sanctions imposed in similar cases and all other 
relevant factors should be considered in determining the appropriate sanction for 
professional misconduct. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 19} Comparing Polke’s conduct to that of the attorney in Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Pfundstein, 128 Ohio St.3d 61, 2010-Ohio-6150, 941 N.E.2d 1180, the 
board recommends that we suspend Polke from the practice of law for one year, 
but stay the entire suspension once he meets the following conditions: (1) comply 
with any CLE requirements imposed by this court, (2) pay the costs of these 
proceedings, (3) reimburse the Clients’ Security Fund for all awards made to the 
clients affected by his misconduct, (4) enter into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and abide by all treatment recommendations and 
requirements established by OLAP, and (5) engage in no further misconduct. 
{¶ 20} In representing a single client in the collection of a legal-
malpractice judgment and litigation of an employment-discrimination claim 
against the client’s former employer, Pfundstein failed to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness, failed to keep his client reasonably informed of the 
status of the matters, and failed to respond promptly to his client’s reasonable 
requests for information, and he thereby engaged in conduct adversely reflecting 
on his fitness to practice.  Id. at ¶ 6-13.  The only aggravating factors present were 
that Pfundstein had engaged in a pattern of misconduct and had committed 
multiple offenses.  Id. at ¶ 15.  See also BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d). 
Mitigating factors, however, included the absence of a prior disciplinary record, 
Pfundstein’s cooperative attitude and expressions of remorse during the 
disciplinary proceedings, and evidence of his good character and reputation apart 
from the charged misconduct, as demonstrated by over 20 letters attesting to his 
good character, reputation, and community service during his 18 years of practice.  
Id. at ¶ 16.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (e).  Like Polke, 
Pfundstein had also been diagnosed with a mental illness that contributed to cause 
his misconduct.  Pfundstein had undergone a sustained period of successful 
treatment and was capable of returning to competent, ethical professional practice 
of law.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 
January Term, 2012 
9 
 
{¶ 21} In Pfundstein, we imposed a one-year suspension and stayed it on 
the conditions that Pfundstein (1) remain in compliance with his OLAP contract, 
(2) comply with the treatment recommended by OLAP and his treating 
psychologist, (3) serve a period of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(9) for the duration of his three-year OLAP contract, and (4) pay the costs of 
disciplinary proceedings.  Although Polke’s conduct is not identical to that of 
Pfundstein, it is sufficiently similar that we find our disposition in Pfundstein to 
be instructive. 
{¶ 22} Accordingly, we suspend Dennis J. Polke from the practice of law 
for one year, with the entire suspension stayed upon his satisfying the following 
conditions:  (1) rectify any existing CLE deficiency and maintain compliance with 
all Gov.Bar R. X requirements, including those ordered by the court on January 
22, 2009, (2) reimburse the Clients’ Security Fund for all awards made to the 
clients affected by his misconduct herein or obtain a determination of 
dischargeability from the appropriate bankruptcy court, (3) enter into an OLAP 
contract for a duration to be determined by OLAP and comply with all treatment 
recommendations, (4) serve a one-year period of monitored probation in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9), (5) pay the costs associated with his mental 
health suspension as ordered by this court on January 22, 2009, or obtain a 
determination of dischargeability from the appropriate bankruptcy court, and (6) 
commit no further misconduct.  If Polke fails to comply with the terms of the stay, 
the stay will be revoked, and he will serve the full one-year suspension.  Costs are 
taxed to Polke. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
KENNEDY, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
Shapero & Green L.L.C., Brian Green, and Michael Shapero, for relator. 
Dennis J. Polke, pro se. 
______________________