Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Bodnar

Citation: 2000-Ohio-97

Docket Number: 20001098

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Bodnar, 90 Ohio St.3d 399, 2000-Ohio-97.] 
 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. BODNAR. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Bodnar (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 399.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Engaging in illegal 
conduct involving moral turpitude — Engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Failing to cooperate in 
an investigation of a complaint — Previous stayed six-month suspension. 
(No. 00-1098 — Submitted August 22, 2000 — Decided December 13, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-41. 
 
On August 9, 1999, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a complaint 
against respondent, Andrew P. Bodnar, Jr. of Akron, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No. 0032329, for allegedly violating DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct 
involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct 
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in any 
other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (duty to cooperate in an investigation of a complaint).  
Respondent was served with the complaint on August 14, 1999.  When he failed 
to answer, relator filed a motion for default judgment. 
 
A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of 
the Supreme Court (“board”) found that in October 1997, Alfred and Shirley Paul 
advanced $50,000 to respondent in exchange for a thirty-day promissory note 
with a fifteen-percent return.  Respondent claimed to secure the note with shares 
of QuickStart Technologies, Inc., a California Corporation; however, respondent 
 
 
2 
did not have the authority to use whatever interest he had in that company as 
collateral for the promissory note.  The note was not paid when due and the Pauls 
expressed concern to respondent, demanding payment.  Respondent, however, 
made only one payment of $10,000 to the Pauls. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s actions violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 
1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  The panel 
also noted that we previously disciplined respondent in Akron Bar Assn. v. 
Bodnar (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 372, 704 N.E.2d 236, for violation of DR 6-
101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not handle a matter which he knows, or should know, 
he is not competent to handle) and 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal 
matter entrusted to him).  In that case, we suspended respondent from the practice 
of law for six months with the entire six-month suspension stayed.  In light of this 
prior violation and the absence of any mitigating circumstances, the panel 
recommended permanent disbarment.  The board adopted the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
David Friedman and Stephen A. Fallis, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law 
in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. 
 
COOK, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent.  
Respondent’s charges relate to the failure to repay a loan he improperly 
 
 
3 
collateralized.  No one seems to dispute that respondent did own stock in 
QuickStart Technologies, Inc.  Therefore, there is no evidence that he was 
deceitful regarding his ownership of the stock.  Moreover, there appears to be no 
allegation that he initially secured the loan intending not to repay it. 
 
Defaults in personal matters are not usually cause for disbarment.  
However, I believe that the combination of respondent’s misrepresentation of his 
ability to pledge stock as collateral, his prior disciplinary matter, his behavior 
subsequent to the default, and his failure to respond to this complaint warrant 
further disciplinary action.  But I do not believe that disbarment is the appropriate 
sanction. 
 
Therefore, I would indefinitely suspend respondent with reinstatement 
conditioned upon full repayment of the loan.