Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cicirella

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cicirella, 94 Ohio St.3d 224, 2002-Ohio-643.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. CICIRELLA. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cicirella (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 224.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter — Failing to maintain complete records of all 
client funds coming into lawyer’s possession and render appropriate 
accounts thereof — Failing to promptly deliver to client funds or 
property to which client is entitled — 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 — Neglecting or refusing 
to assist or testify in a disciplinary investigation or hearing — Previous 
suspension from practice of law. 
(No. 01-1582 — Submitted October 10, 2001 — Decided January 30, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-71. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In July 1993, Eleanor Chadwell retained respondent, 
Leonette F. Cicirella of Bedford, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0042219, gave 
her bills and creditor correspondence, and paid her $150 to file a bankruptcy.  
Respondent did not file the bankruptcy, but she repeatedly advised Chadwell that 
everything was “okay” and that a date for hearing would be set, even though 
Chadwell was receiving calls from creditors.  In 1998, Chadwell retained another 
attorney to file the bankruptcy.  The new attorney was unable to retrieve 
Chadwell’s papers or the $150 from respondent. 
 
After several unsuccessful attempts to contact respondent about her failure 
to act, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a complaint on August 14, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
2000, alleging that respondent’s failure to act or respond to relator violated 
several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent did not 
answer, and the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”) 
referred the matter to Master Commissioner Harry W. White for ruling on 
relator’s motion for default. 
 
The master commissioner found the facts as stated and concluded that 
respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted 
legal matter), 9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds 
of a client coming into the lawyer’s possession and render appropriate accounts 
thereof), 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client funds or 
property to which the client is entitled), 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-
102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (a lawyer shall not 
neglect or refuse to assist or testify in an investigation or hearing). 
 
The master commissioner further found as an aggravating circumstance 
that we had previously suspended respondent from the practice of law for two 
years, with one year stayed, for neglecting an entrusted legal matter.  Cleveland 
Bar Assn. v. Cicirella (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 544, 715 N.E.2d 1131, and that in 
April 2000, we held respondent in contempt for failure to comply with the terms 
of the order of suspension.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cicirella (2000), 88 Ohio 
St.3d 1463, 726 N.E.2d 1001.  The master commissioner recommended that 
respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  The board 
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the master 
commissioner. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
 
On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent.  The majority’s imposition of 
an indefinite suspension inadequately takes into account such aggravating factors 
as respondent’s prior disciplinary offenses, her repeated failure to cooperate in the 
investigation of grievances, and her disregard for the orders of this court.  See 
Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, 
Section 10(B)(1), Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.  I would disbar 
respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Steven L. Gardner, Martha H. Krebs and Stanley E. Stein, for relator. 
__________________