Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Sladoje

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Sladoje, 97 Ohio St.3d 116, 2002-Ohio-5350.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. SLADOJE. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Sladoje, 97 Ohio St.3d 116, 2002-Ohio-5350.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with six months of 
sanction stayed on condition that attorney commit no further violations 
of the Disciplinary Rules — Communicating with another attorney’s 
clients without that attorney’s knowledge — Advising client that she 
could avoid responsibility for her unauthorized disposal of estate assets 
by leaving the probate court’s territorial jurisdiction. 
(No. 2002-0691 — Submitted July 24, 2002 — Decided October 16, 2002.) 
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-47. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In this case, we must decide the sanction for a probate attorney 
who communicated with another attorney’s clients without that attorney’s 
knowledge and later advised his client that she could avoid responsibility for her 
unauthorized disposal of estate assets by leaving the probate court’s territorial 
jurisdiction. 
{¶2} 
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found 
that respondent, Mark Sladoje Jr. of Las Vegas, Nevada, Attorney Registration 
No. 0024811, had committed this conduct and thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(4) 
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 
(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and (6) 
(engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law); 7-102(A)(5) 
(knowingly making a false statement of fact) and (7) (counseling a client in illegal 
or fraudulent conduct); 7-104(A)(1) (communicating with a represented party); 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
and 7-106(A) (disregarding a tribunal’s ruling).  The board recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, but that 
six months of this period be stayed.  We agree with the board’s findings and 
recommendation. 
{¶3} 
Respondent was retained in 1996 to represent a client in the 
administration of her ex-husband’s estate.  The client and her ex-husband had 
divorced in 1995; however, they continued to live together, and the ex-husband 
never changed his will to remove her as the principal beneficiary.  As a result of 
their divorce, the ex-husband’s testamentary bequest to his former wife became 
invalid under R.C. 2107.33 when he died in May 1996. 
{¶4} 
When the client initially approached respondent about representing 
her, he advised her that she had lost her rights as a beneficiary and would 
probably not succeed in a will contest.  However, upon learning that the client 
was on fairly good terms with her ex-husband’s sons, who stood to inherit in her 
place, respondent also suggested that she and the sons might agree to another 
division of the estate assets.  Respondent, who at that time did not yet consider 
himself to have been formally retained, offered to represent the client in the 
administration of her ex-husband’s estate in the event such an agreement was 
reached. 
{¶5} 
Thereafter, the client arranged for the two sons to meet at 
respondent’s office.  The client brought with her to the meeting a contract 
providing for the estate assets to be divided between all three of them and for the 
sons’ resignation as coexecutors of the estate.  After some additional negotiating 
outside respondent’s presence, the client and the sons executed the agreement, 
which had been prepared with respondent’s assistance.  At some point during this 
meeting, respondent discovered that the sons were represented by counsel; 
however, he did not consult the sons’ attorney at all before allowing them to 
execute the agreement with their ex-stepmother. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
{¶6} 
Respondent then prepared various documents asking the probate 
court to appoint his client the successor executor in accordance with the 
agreement between her and her ex-husband’s sons.  The probate court made the 
appointment, and respondent and his client began to administer the estate, 
including disbursing the assets.  In the meantime, the sons’ attorney advised the 
probate court of his objections to the agreement, and, on his motion, the probate 
court set the agreement aside and appointed an independent executor to replace 
respondent’s client.  Respondent received notice of this order, but he believed that 
the probate court’s order was absolutely void for lack of jurisdiction and advised 
his client that she could ignore the judgment entry and continue to disburse assets 
in her capacity as estate executor. 
{¶7} 
The probate court eventually found that respondent’s client had 
distributed over $30,000 in estate assets without authority, and it ordered the 
successor executor to pursue collection remedies against respondent’s client to 
regain those assets.  Under the threat of these proceedings, respondent’s client 
asked him what she could do.  Respondent advised his client that she was free to 
leave the state.  In fact, he recommended Texas or Florida because of the 
difficulty in collecting judgments in those states. 
{¶8} 
On June 11, 2001, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging that respondent had violated the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  A panel of the board heard the cause, found the facts as stated, 
and concluded that respondent had violated the cited Disciplinary Rules.  In 
making its recommendation, the panel considered that respondent had not been 
the subject of prior disciplinary proceedings and that he was completely 
forthcoming and cooperative during the disciplinary process.  See Section 10 of 
the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings 
Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  The panel 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
for his misconduct, but that six months of this sanction be suspended.  The board 
adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation. 
{¶9} 
Contrary to respondent’s objections to the board’s decision, we 
find ample evidence from which the board could make its findings of misconduct.  
Thus, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), and (6); 7-
102(A)(5) and (7); 7-104(A)(1); and 7-106(A).  We also agree that the board’s 
recommended sanction is appropriate.  Respondent is therefore suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio for one year; however, six months of this sanction are 
stayed on the condition that he commit no further violations of the Disciplinary 
Rules.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, J., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶10} I would suspend respondent for one year and would not stay any 
part of the suspension. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Susan C. Walker, Jack G. Gibbs Jr., Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and 
Jill M. Snitcher McQuain, Assistant Bar Counsel, for relator. 
 
Dwight Alan Teegardin, for respondent. 
__________________