Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Nowicki

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Nowicki, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3912.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-3912 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. NOWICKI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Nowicki,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3912.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to represent client with reasonable diligence—
Six-month suspension stayed on conditions including restitution. 
(No. 2012-0276—Submitted March 7, 2012—Decided September 4, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-082. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Griff M. Nowicki of Huber Heights, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0071849, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 2000.  On October 10, 
2011, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a complaint alleging that Nowicki 
had agreed to represent Shannon M. Millhoff in a civil matter but failed to prepare 
for the trial, enter an appearance on Millhoff’s behalf, and timely file objections 
to the magistrate’s decision and also failed to timely appeal the judgment against 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
his client.  As a result of Nowicki’s failures, an $8,262.94 judgment was entered 
against the client. 
{¶ 2} The parties have submitted a consent-to-discipline agreement 
pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11.  In that agreement, they stipulate that the 
operative facts as alleged in the complaint are true and that Nowicki’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client). 
{¶ 3} The parties stipulate to the following aggravating factors:  (1) 
Nowicki received an attorney-registration suspension for his failure to timely 
register for the 2005-2007 biennium,  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of 
Nowicki, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671, although his 
license was reinstated just five days later,  In re Nowicki, 107 Ohio St.3d 1705, 
2006-Ohio-13, 840 N.E.2d 209, and (2) Nowicki’s misconduct and the resulting 
judgment caused extreme financial hardship for Millhoff, a single mother 
supporting three young children. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a) and (h). 
{¶ 4} And as to mitigating factors, they stipulate that Nowicki has (1) 
instituted a more thorough process to document communications with his clients, 
(2) started using an online calendar in addition to a paper calendar, (3) adopted a 
process to digitize all documents received by his office, (4) joined a law firm that 
will provide additional staff and resources to avoid oversights, and (5) has 
obtained the release of garnishment, paid Millhoff $400, agreed to pay Millhoff 
an additional $2,142.36 in monthly installments of $250, and made arrangements 
to satisfy the remainder of the judgment. 
{¶ 5} Based upon the foregoing, the parties stipulate that Nowicki should 
be suspended from the practice of law for six months, all stayed on the conditions 
that he reimburse Millhoff $2,142.36 in monthly installments of at least $250 and 
satisfy the remainder of the judgment against her. 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
{¶ 6} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline reviewed the consent-to-discipline agreement.  Observing that the 
parties’ stipulated sanction was consistent with sanctions imposed by this court 
for similar misconduct, the panel and board recommend that we adopt the 
agreement.  See, e.g.,   Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Drain, 120 Ohio St.3d 288, 
2008-Ohio-6141, 898 N.E.2d 580 (imposing a six-month suspension, all stayed on 
conditions, for an attorney who neglected a client’s matter by failing to 
adequately prepare and missing the statute of limitations for her claim). 
{¶ 7} Having considered Nowicki’s misconduct, the aggravating and 
mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10, the sanctions we have imposed 
for similar misconduct, and the recommendations of the panel and board, we 
accept the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement. 
{¶ 8} Accordingly, Griff M. Nowicki is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law for six months, all stayed on the conditions that he reimburse 
Millhoff $2,142.36 in monthly installments of at least $250, with payment to be 
completed within six months of this judgment, and satisfy the remainder of the 
judgment against her.  If Nowicki fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, 
the stay will be lifted and respondent shall serve the full six-month suspension.  
Costs are taxed to Nowicki. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Dunlevey, Mahan & Furry and David M. Rickert, for relator. 
Griff M. Nowicki, pro se. 
______________________