Case Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Yavorcik

Citation: 2020-Ohio-123

Docket Number: 2019-1086

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-01-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Yavorcik, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-123.] 
 
 
 
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. 2020-OHIO-123 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. YAVORCIK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Yavorcik, Slip Opinion No.  
2020-Ohio-123.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—Two-
year suspension with six months conditionally stayed. 
(No. 2019-1086—Submitted September 11, 2019—Decided January 21, 2020.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2017-016. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Martin Edward Yavorcik, of Youngstown, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0070681, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1999.  On May 2, 2016, we suspended him from the practice of law on an interim 
basis after he was convicted of multiple felonies arising from his involvement in 
the corrupt activity surrounding Mahoning County’s purchase of Oakhill 
Renaissance Place and from related campaign-finance violations.  See In re 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Yavorcik, 145 Ohio St.3d 1453, 2016-Ohio-2741, 49 N.E.3d 317.  After his 
convictions were vacated on appeal, see State v. Yavorcik, 2018-Ohio-1824, 113 
N.E.3d 100 (8th Dist.), we reinstated his license on January 10, 2019, In re 
Yavorcik, 156 Ohio St.3d 1212, 2019-Ohio-31, 124 N.E.3d 846. 
{¶ 2} In an October 31, 2018 second amended complaint, relator, Mahoning 
County Bar Association, alleged that Yavorcik committed multiple violations of 
the Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his involvement in the Oakhill 
matter, his false statements and omissions regarding certain financial contributions 
to his 2008 political campaign, and his neglect of a single client matter around the 
time of his own criminal trial. 
{¶ 3} The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors.  Yavorcik admitted that he violated five 
professional-conduct rules with respect to his campaign-finance reports and client 
representation, and relator moved to dismiss the remaining allegations. 
{¶ 4} A panel of the board conducted a hearing and issued a report finding 
that Yavorcik committed the stipulated misconduct and unanimously dismissing 
nine other alleged rule violations.  The panel also recommended that Yavorcik be 
suspended from the practice of law for two years but that he receive 18 months of 
credit for the time he had served under his interim suspension and that the 
remaining six months be stayed on conditions.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction.  No objections 
have been filed. 
{¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and agree that a two-
year suspension, with credit for the 18 months he had served under his interim 
suspension and the final six months stayed on the conditions recommended by the 
board, is the appropriate sanction for Yavorcik’s misconduct. 
 
 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
Misconduct 
Campaign Contributions 
{¶ 6} Yavorcik was running as a candidate for Mahoning County prosecutor 
in the 2008 general election when a political consultant recommended that they 
conduct a poll to evaluate Yavorcik’s chances of defeating the incumbent.  On 
March 20, 2008, Yavorcik received a $15,000 check from Flora Cafaro and issued 
a receipt to “William M. Cafaro/American Gladiator Fitness Center” stating that 
the $15,000 payment was for services rendered from February 20, 2008, forward.  
He deposited that check into his business account and then issued a $15,000 check 
to Global Strategies Group to pay for the poll. 
{¶ 7} Yavorcik misrepresented the source of the $15,000 on the campaign-
finance report that he filed prior to the general election.  Rather than state that Flora 
Cafaro—whose family was involved in the Oakhill controversy—had contributed 
the funds, he falsely reported that he had made an in-kind contribution of $15,000 
to his campaign.  Yavorcik also failed to report Cafaro’s payment as income on his 
2008 federal tax return and to disclose two additional cash contributions on the 
campaign-finance report that he filed after the general election.  The Ohio Elections 
Commission found that Yavorcik’s conduct violated campaign-finance-reporting 
laws and fined him $200.  In 2014, Yavorcik amended his federal income-tax return 
and attempted to pay the tax on Cafaro’s payment, but the government declined to 
assess tax on the payment due to the passage of time. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the board found that Yavorcik’s 
misrepresentation and omissions on his campaign-finance reports and income-tax 
return violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an 
illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness).  We 
adopt the board’s finding of misconduct. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
The Yambar Matter 
{¶ 9} Following an August 12, 2013 motor-vehicle accident, Robert E. 
Yambar retained Yavorcik to pursue personal-injury claims on behalf of himself 
and his minor son.  Although Yambar agreed to settle his son’s claim for $10,000, 
he was unhappy with the offer of the other driver’s insurer to settle Yambar’s claim 
for his own injuries.  Yavorcik filed a complaint against the other driver and his 
insurer one day before the applicable statute of limitations expired. 
{¶ 10} On September 3, 2015, the insurer issued a $10,000 check payable 
to Yambar, as parent and natural guardian of his son, and Yavorcik deposited the 
check into his client trust account at PNC Bank.  Yavorcik prepared an application 
to obtain probate-court approval of Yambar’s son’s settlement, but Yambar never 
signed it and Yavorcik never submitted it to the court.  At some point while 
Yavorcik was representing himself in his own criminal trial, he transferred 
Yambar’s file to another attorney. 
{¶ 11} On October 20, 2016, Yambar filed a grievance against Yavorcik.  
During the ensuing investigation, Yavorcik informed relator’s investigator that 
PNC Bank had closed his client trust account without prior notice.  After the 
account was closed, the bank had issued Yavorcik a check for $4,552.79—which 
was less than the amount Yavorcik should have held in trust for Yambar’s son.  On 
April 30, 2018, Yavorcik sent Yambar two cashiers’ checks totaling $10,931.28. 
{¶ 12} Yavorcik admitted, and the board found, that he failed to keep 
Yambar reasonably informed about the status of his legal matters and failed to 
comply as soon as practicable with Yambar’s reasonable requests for information, 
in violation of  Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter) and 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer 
to comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from a 
client).  In accord with the parties’ stipulations, the board also found that Yavorcik 
failed to inform Yambar that he did not carry professional-liability insurance of at 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
least $100,000 per occurrence and $300,000 in the aggregate in violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform a client if the lawyer does not 
maintain professional-liability insurance and to obtain a signed acknowledgment of 
that notice from the client) and failed to hold Yambar’s son’s settlement funds in 
his client trust account and to maintain required records regarding those funds in 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold funds belonging to a 
client or third party in a client trust account separate from his own property and to 
maintain certain records regarding the funds held in that account).  We adopt these 
findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases.   
 
{¶ 14} The board found that just one aggravating factor is present: Yavorcik 
committed multiple offenses.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4).  But it also noted that 
Yavorcik had damaged the integrity of and the public’s confidence in the election 
system by failing to identify an actual source of his campaign funds. 
{¶ 15} In mitigation, the board found that Yavorcik (1) had made a timely, 
good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of his misconduct by making complete 
restitution to Yambar almost a year before his disciplinary hearing, (2) had made 
full and free disclosure to the board, had demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward 
the proceedings, and had been remorseful for his actions, and (3) had offered five 
letters attesting to his good character.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(3), (4), and (5).  
The board also found that other penalties or sanctions had been imposed in that the 
Ohio Elections Commission had fined Yavorcik for his campaign-finance-reporting 
violations and he had served a criminal sanction that included one year of house 
arrest, continuous alcohol and global-positioning-system (GPS) monitoring, and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
200 hours of community service—though his convictions were later vacated and 
related allegations of ethical misconduct had been dismissed by the panel in this 
case.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(6).  The board attributed no aggravating or 
mitigating effect to Yavorcik’s related 32-month interim felony suspension—which 
remains on his disciplinary record. 
{¶ 16} Yavorcik made no effort to establish the existence of a mitigating 
substance-use disorder under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7).  He did, however, testify 
that he used alcohol every night to cope with the stress of his criminal trial and that 
until his convictions were vacated, he was required to attend Alcoholics 
Anonymous meetings and was subject to random drug testing as conditions of his 
community-control sanctions.  Given that history, the board expressed concern 
about Yavorcik’s testimony that he was continuing to use alcohol approximately 
once a week—including the night before his disciplinary hearing. 
{¶ 17} The board recommends that Yavorcik be suspended from the 
practice of law for two years with six months stayed but that the time he has served 
under his interim felony suspension be credited against the first 18 months of that 
suspension.  As conditions for the stay, the board recommends that we require 
Yavorcik to submit to an assessment conducted by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”) or a qualified chemical-dependency professional, comply with 
any recommendations arising from that assessment, complete six hours of 
continuing legal education (“CLE”) in law-office management, serve one year of 
monitored probation, and engage in no further misconduct. 
{¶ 18} In support of that recommendation, the board cited several cases in 
which we imposed sanctions ranging from a fully stayed one-year suspension to a 
two-year suspension with six months conditionally stayed on attorneys who 
committed some of the same ethical violations that Yavorcik did.  For example, in 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. McCord, 150 Ohio St.3d 81, 2016-Ohio-3298, 79 N.E.3d 
503, we imposed a conditionally stayed one-year suspension on an attorney who 
January Term, 2020 
 
7
committed illegal acts that adversely reflected on his honesty or trustworthiness by 
failing to file federal income-tax returns for five years and who failed to inform his 
clients that he did not maintain professional-liability insurance.  McCord also 
engaged in trust-account violations comparable to Yavorcik’s failures to safeguard 
Yambar’s settlement funds and to maintain records regarding the funds held in his 
client trust account, but there was no allegation that McCord failed to reasonably 
communicate with a client as Yavorcik did. 
{¶ 19} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Ames, 147 Ohio St.3d 363, 2016-Ohio-
7830, 65 N.E.3d 754, the attorney admitted that he had misappropriated over $8,000 
from his late brother’s estate—for which he had been convicted of felony theft—
and had filed a probate-court document in which he falsely represented that he had 
obtained his nieces’ consent to distribute additional funds to himself.  Like 
Yavorcik, Ames admitted that his conduct adversely reflected on his honesty or 
trustworthiness, but he also admitted that it violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation) and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).  Id. at ¶ 3.  In the presence of 
multiple mitigating factors and just two aggravating factors, we adopted the parties’ 
consent-to-discipline agreement and suspended Ames for two years with the final 
six months stayed on conditions, crediting him for the time he had served under a 
related interim felony suspension. 
{¶ 20} Although Yavorcik, McCord, and Ames each engaged in conduct 
that adversely reflected on their honesty or trustworthiness in violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), Yavorcik’s conduct is arguably the most egregious of those 
violations because his actions also served to undermine public confidence in the 
transparency of our election process by concealing an actual source of his campaign 
funds.  But  Yavorcik has already served a 32-month interim felony suspension 
based on felony convictions that were ultimately vacated on appeal.  In recognition 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
of that sanction, Yavorcik’s acknowledgment of his wrongdoing, and his sincere 
remorse, we agree that a two-year suspension, with 18 months of credit for time 
served and the final six months stayed on the conditions recommended by the 
board, is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
{¶ 21} Accordingly, Martin Edward Yavorcik is suspended from the 
practice of law for two years, and the time that Yavorcik has served under our May 
2016 interim-felony-suspension order shall be credited against the first 18 months 
of that suspension.  The final six months of the suspension shall be stayed on the 
conditions that Yavorcik (1) submit to an assessment conducted by OLAP or a 
qualified chemical-dependency professional within 90 days of our order and 
comply with any recommendations arising from that assessment, (2) successfully 
complete a one-year period of monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. 
V(21) focused on his law-office practices, including the management of his client 
trust account, his compliance with Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c), and his compliance with 
any recommendations arising from his OLAP/chemical-dependency evaluation, (3) 
complete six hours of CLE related to client-trust-account and law-office 
management in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and (4) engage in no 
further misconduct.  If Yavorcik fails to comply with a condition of the stay, the 
stay will be lifted and he will serve the final six months of the two-year suspension.  
Costs are taxed to Yavorcik. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
David C. Comstock Jr. and Ronald E. Slipski, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
John B. Juhasz, for respondent. 
_________________