Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Lehotsky

Citation: 2005-Ohio-1204

Docket Number: 20041763

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Lehotsky, 105 Ohio St.3d 226, 2005-Ohio-1204.] 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. LEHOTSKY. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Lehotsky,  
105 Ohio St.3d 226, 2005-Ohio-1204.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension—Neglect of entrusted legal 
matters—Failure to carry out contract of employment—Failure to pay 
funds to client—Dishonesty—Failure to cooperate in disciplinary 
investigation. 
(No. 2004-1763 — Submitted January 19, 2005 — Decided April 6, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-055. 
_______________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Marc A. Lehotsky, last known address in Lakewood, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0068814, was admitted to the practice of law in 
Ohio in 1997.  On June 9, 2003, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, charged 
respondent with two counts of having violated the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  Attempts to serve respondent by certified mail and the Cuyahoga 
County Sheriff were unsuccessful, and the complaint was served on the Clerk of 
the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent did not answer, 
and relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). 
{¶ 2} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline granted the motion, making findings of misconduct 
and a recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
{¶ 3} As to Count I, the board found that around November 10, 2001, 
Jeffrey and Laura Krause paid respondent $225 to draft their wills.  A month later, 
not having heard from respondent, the Krauses called him to check on his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
progress.  Respondent told the Krauses that he would have the wills completed 
shortly.  From January through March 2002, the Krauses left several telephone 
messages for respondent.  Respondent returned one of these calls, leaving word 
that he was dealing with some family problems and would complete their wills 
soon.  Sometime after April 2002, the Krauses attempted to contact respondent 
again, only to discover that his telephone had been disconnected.  Respondent 
never did prepare wills for the Krauses, nor did he return the retainer they had 
paid. 
{¶ 4} With respect to Count I, the board found that respondent had 
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting the neglect of an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(2) (requiring a lawyer to carry out a contract of professional 
employment), 9-102(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer to promptly pay a client funds the 
client is entitled to receive), and 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
{¶ 5} As to Count II, the board found that respondent had failed to 
cooperate in relator’s investigation of this misconduct, a violation of Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G).  On November 8, 2002, relator sent a certified letter to respondent 
requesting a written response to a grievance filed by the Krauses.  The letter was 
returned marked “unclaimed.” 
{¶ 6} On December 5, 2002, relator mailed another letter to respondent, 
again requesting a written response to the Krauses’ grievance.  Soon after, 
respondent replied by letter, acknowledging relator’s investigation and advising 
that he intended to resign his license to practice law.  In view of his anticipated 
resignation, respondent suggested that an investigation of the Krauses’ grievance 
was unnecessary. 
{¶ 7} In a letter dated December 18, 2002, relator supplied respondent 
with information regarding the resignation process and asked for a response to the 
Krause grievance.  Relator advised respondent that the investigation would 
January Term, 2005 
3 
continue until this court accepted his resignation.  Respondent apparently received 
this letter because it was not returned as refused, unclaimed, or otherwise 
undeliverable. 
{¶ 8} On March 26, 2003, relator sent another investigative inquiry to 
respondent at the same address.  He did not reply.  On April 30, 2003, relator sent 
a letter by certified and regular mail, requesting yet again a response to the 
grievance and advising of the intention to file a formal complaint.  The certified 
letter was returned unclaimed, but the other letter was not.  On July 30, 2004, 
after filing the formal complaint, relator sent duplicate letters by regular and 
certified mail warning respondent of an impending motion for default.  Both 
letters were returned as unclaimed. 
{¶ 9} In its letter of April 30, 2003, relator had referred respondent to the 
Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) because of respondent’s own 
expressions of concern for his well-being in his letter of December 2002.  Several 
days later, Scott R. Mote, Executive Director of OLAP, sent a letter to respondent 
offering OLAP’s assistance and services on the chance that respondent might be 
suffering from a chemical dependency or mental disorder.  That letter, which was 
not returned, also produced no response. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} In recommending a sanction for his misconduct, the board 
considered the mitigating and aggravating factors of respondent’s case.  See 
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.”).  The board found that respondent had apologized for his 
misconduct in his letter of December 2002 and had never before been the subject 
of disciplinary proceedings.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  The board noted that 
respondent had not updated his attorney registration for this biennium and had 
apparently stopped accepting new clients in anticipation of his resignation and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
was winding up the affairs of other clients.  As aggravating factors, the board 
found that respondent had failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process and had 
not made restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(i).  Respondent had also failed to 
pay a $150 sanction ordered on February 27, 2003, for his noncompliance with 
continuing legal education requirements. 
{¶ 11} Consistent with the sanction recommended by relator and the 
master commissioner, the board recommended that respondent be suspended from 
the practice of law for one year. 
{¶ 12} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 
7-101(A)(2), 9-102(B)(4), and 1-102(A)(4) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) as found by 
the board.  We also agree that a one-year suspension is appropriate for this single 
example of neglect and respondent’s failure to cooperate.  Accord Cuyahoga Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 547, 715 N.E.2d 1134 (isolated 
incident of misconduct, coupled with prior history of discipline, but also eventual 
cooperation in disciplinary process warranted attorney’s one-year suspension 
from the practice of law).  In addition to the board’s sanction, we further accept 
relator’s recommendation that respondent be ordered to pay restitution.  See, e.g., 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Patterson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 23, 711 N.E.2d 221. 
{¶ 13} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for one year.  He is also ordered to repay the Krauses’ $225 retainer, and, 
upon any request for reinstatement to the practice of law, he must show proof of 
this restitution.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., O’CONNOR and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent. 
___________________ 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶ 14} I respectfully dissent from the sanction imposed on respondent. 
January Term, 2005 
5 
{¶ 15} The record before us demonstrates a pattern of irresponsibility on 
the part of respondent.  He not only failed to perform the legal service he agreed 
to perform and failed to return his clients’ telephone calls, but also failed to return 
the money he took from his clients more than three years ago as a retainer for that 
service.  Moreover, he has largely ignored the resulting disciplinary investigation 
and proceedings against him. 
{¶ 16} The majority imposes a one-year suspension.  At the end of that 
suspension, respondent presumably can be reinstated to the practice of law simply 
upon proof of restitution of $225 to his clients and compliance with the 
registration obligation imposed by Gov.Bar R. VI  and other applicable rules 
adopted for the government of the bar.  There will be no review of his conduct 
during the year of suspension.  We therefore will have no assurance that his 
dismissive attitude regarding the rules of this court and the need to cooperate with 
the disciplinary process will have changed.  Why should a lawyer who shows 
utter disregard for our system of peer review be readmitted with no review of his 
conduct?  We owe more than that to his prospective clients. 
{¶ 17} I am not confident that the public will be protected from future 
misconduct should respondent in fact be reinstated at the end of one year.  
Although respondent says he intends to discontinue the practice of law, we have 
no assurance that he will.  He has not submitted a resignation from the practice of 
law as authorized by Gov.Bar R. V(11).  We should impose a sanction that 
provides greater assurance that respondent’s unprofessional conduct will not be 
repeated. 
{¶ 18} I would impose an indefinite suspension in order that we may 
determine upon his application for readmission, should one be presented, whether 
respondent intends to continue practicing law in Ohio and whether he appreciates 
all the responsibilities that accompany a license to practice law. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
O’CONNOR and LANZINGER, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting 
opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Denise Platfoot Lacey, for relator. 
______________________