Case Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Santarelli

Citation: 1997-Ohio-308

Docket Number: 19970875

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-09-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SANTARELLI. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Santarelli (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 390.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Failure to promptly 
pay or deliver to client, when requested, funds of the client in lawyer’s 
possession which the client is entitled to receive — Failure to cooperate 
with bar association disciplinary investigation — Failure to register as an 
attorney for the 1993/1995 biennium. 
(No. 97-875 — Submitted June 11, 1997 — Decided September 24, 1997.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-52. 
 
Early in 1992, Alice M. Morgan paid respondent, Gregory A. Santarelli of 
Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0038422, a $1,000 retainer to 
represent her in divorce proceedings.  After the divorce papers were filed, Morgan 
and her husband reconciled.  Respondent’s final bill to Morgan on March 11, 1992 
totaled $1,695, which included filing fees.  On April 11, 1992, Morgan paid $200 
to respondent; on June 19, 1992, she paid $247.50; and on September 15, 1992, 
she paid $500.  Thus, Morgan’s final payment was $252.50 more than she owed to 
respondent.  Morgan paid the additional amount because she was not sure the 
reconciliation would go smoothly, and she explained to respondent that should the 
need arise to pursue the divorce further, she would have paid something on 
account. 
 
On February 1, 1993, Morgan asked respondent to return the additional 
payment.  Respondent did not respond to that request, nor did he reply to 
Morgan’s further request in January 1994.  After several other attempts to contact 
respondent, Morgan filed a grievance with relator, Cuyahoga County Bar 
Association.  After several unsuccessful attempts to contact respondent about 
 
2
Morgan’s grievance, relator filed a complaint on June 17, 1996, charging 
respondent with violating DR 9-102(B)(4) (promptly pay or deliver to a client, 
when requested, funds of the client in the possession of the lawyer which the client 
is entitled to receive).  
 
Because respondent had not cooperated with relator’s investigation, relator 
charged in Count Two of the complaint that respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. V 
(failure to cooperate in an investigation) and DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in 
conduct which adversely reflects upon an attorney’s fitness to practice law).  
Because respondent had not registered for the 1993/1995 biennium, relator 
charged in Count Three of the complaint that respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. 
VI and DR 1-102(A)(6). 
 
At a hearing before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”), respondent said that in 1991 and 
1992 it became increasingly difficult for him to function as a lawyer.  During 
1994, his last year of practice, he would show up for work and spend the time 
sleeping in his car in a parking lot.  Respondent said he has been treated for 
depression for the past four years and that he finally quit practicing law because he 
was disillusioned.  Respondent was unemployed in 1995 and is currently working 
in a sales capacity for an aerospace company.  He stated that he was willing to 
repay Morgan the money that he owed her. 
 
The panel found the facts as alleged in the complaint and concluded that 
respondent’s failure to repay the funds to Morgan constituted a violation of DR 9-
102(B)(4), that his failure to cooperate in the investigation violated Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) and DR 1-102(A)(6), and that his failure to register violated DR 1-
102(A)(6).  The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended 
 
3
from the practice of law.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Howard A. Schulman, Frank R. DeSantis and Robert J. Vecchio, for relator. 
 
Gregory A. Santarelli, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Having review the record in this case, we adopt the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the board.  Respondent is indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.