Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Guarnieri

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Guarnieri, 106 Ohio St.3d 24, 2005-Ohio-3471.] 
 
 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. GUARNIERI. 
[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Guarnieri,  
106 Ohio St.3d 24, 2005-Ohio-3471.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) — Failure to cooperate with 
disciplinary process — Six-month suspension, stayed on condition. 
(No. 2004-2156 — Submitted February 16, 2005 — Decided July 20, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-109. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Dana C. Guarnieri of Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0070195, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1998. 
{¶ 2} On December 8, 2003, relator, Mahoning County Bar Association, 
charged respondent with professional misconduct.  A three-member panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause and, 
based on the parties’ stipulations, found that respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).  The 
board adopted this finding and the recommendation of the panel majority — to 
publicly reprimand respondent. 
{¶ 3} During the events at issue, respondent was employed as an 
assistant director of law for the city of Youngstown and was also engaged in 
private practice.  Respondent now works exclusively for the city and does not 
practice privately. 
{¶ 4} In October 2002, a former client of respondent filed a grievance 
alleging that she had committed professional misconduct.  In November 2002, 
relator notified respondent of the grievance by regular mail and asked for a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
response within 15 days.  Respondent did not reply.  Relator’s investigator then 
sent more letters, made telephone calls, and talked with respondent, but 
respondent still did not respond to the client’s grievance. 
{¶ 5} Respondent at first claimed that she had not received a copy of the 
grievance and later claimed that she had sent a packet of materials in response.  
The investigator, not having received these materials, forwarded to respondent a 
draft of a formal complaint that relator anticipated filing.  Respondent still did not 
respond. 
{¶ 6} Relator later filed a formal complaint, and respondent answered on 
January 2, 2004.  After discovery, the parties stipulated that respondent had not 
violated any of the alleged Disciplinary Rules with respect to her client.  The 
parties also stipulated that respondent had failed to cooperate in the investigation 
of the alleged misconduct and had thereby violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
{¶ 7} The panel thus found a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  In 
recommending a sanction, the panel found mitigating the fact that respondent had 
no prior disciplinary record.  Moreover, respondent was truly sorry for her 
inattention to relator’s investigation, apologizing for having “failed to fully grasp” 
the importance of her responsibility to assist in the regulation of the legal 
profession.  The panel also found that respondent eventually did respond 
appropriately to the allegations against her. 
{¶ 8} As suggested by the parties, the panel majority recommended that 
respondent receive a public reprimand.  The third panel member recommended 
that respondent be suspended for six months, with the suspension stayed.  The 
board adopted the panel’s finding of misconduct and the panel majority’s 
recommendation. 
{¶ 9} On review, we find that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  
We also find that a six-month suspension, stayed on the condition that respondent 
commit no further misconduct, is appropriate. 
January Term, 2005 
3 
{¶ 10} Respondent’s failure to communicate promptly during this 
disciplinary investigation led to the unnecessary filing of a formal complaint and 
the needless expenditure of time and money.  In Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Muhlbach (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 224, 699 N.E.2d 459, we imposed a six-month 
suspension, all stayed, when another lawyer did not respond as required to 
allegations of misconduct.  Quoting Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vala (1998), 82 Ohio 
St. 3d 57, 59, 693 N.E.2d 1083, we said, “ ‘[R]elator might not have filed this 
complaint had respondent been forthcoming when first advised of the  
grievances.’ ”  Id. at 226, 699 N.E.2d 459. 
{¶ 11} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for six months; however, the entire suspension is stayed on the condition 
that respondent commit no further misconduct.  If respondent violates the 
condition of the stay, the stay shall be lifted and respondent shall serve the full 
six-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., 
concur. 
 
RESNICK, PFEIFER and LANZINGER, JJ., would publicly reprimand 
respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Green, Haines & Sgambati Co., L.P.A., and Ronald E. Slipski, for relator. 
 
John B. Juhasz, for respondent. 
____________________