Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sliwinski

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sliwinski, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5640.] 
 
 
 
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-5640 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. SLIWINSKI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sliwinski, Slip Opinion No. 
2012-Ohio-5640.] 
 (No. 2012-1009—Submitted August 22, 2012—Decided December 5, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No.  11-034. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Teddy Sliwinski of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0024901, was admitted to the bar in 1976.  He was and is a solo 
practitioner, with a general practice in the Slavic Village area of Cleveland.  On 
October 5, 2011, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association (“CMBA”), 
filed an amended complaint, alleging that Sliwinski failed to reduce contingent-
fee agreements to writing and mishandled client funds, in part by failing to 
properly maintain his client trust account. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} The parties submitted agreed stipulations that included stipulated 
findings of fact and stipulations to some, but not all, of the alleged misconduct.  
After a hearing, the panel found that Sliwinski had engaged in the stipulated 
misconduct, as well as in some misconduct not stipulated in the agreement.  It 
recommended a six-month stayed suspension on the conditions that a monitor 
oversee Sliwinski’s accounting practices during the stay and that he refund to one 
client a filing fee that he had collected and had not returned. 
{¶ 3} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct and 
agreed with the panel’s recommended sanction, although it also recommended 
that the costs be taxed to Sliwinski. 
{¶ 4} For the reasons that follow, we adopt the board’s recommendation 
and suspend Sliwinski from the practice of law for six months, all stayed on the 
conditions that his accounting practices be monitored during the stayed 
suspension and that he refund the filing fee collected and not returned. 
Misconduct 
Count One—Representation of Lech Mikolajczyk 
{¶ 5} Sliwinski stipulated that he undertook to represent Lech 
Mikolajczyk, who had been injured in an automobile accident.  Sliwinski 
represented him on a contingent-fee basis for 33 1/3 percent of any funds 
recovered by Mikolajczyk.  This arrangement was not reduced to writing. 
{¶ 6} Sliwinski filed suit on Mikolajczyk’s behalf and settled with the 
defendant’s insurance company for $10,500.  On or about June 10, 2009, 
Sliwinski received a settlement check.  On or about August 1, 2009, he remitted 
$1,391.501 to Mikolajczyk with a settlement statement that stated that $3,150, or 
30 percent, had been applied to Sliwinski’s fee, $125.80 had been used to pay 
                                                 
1 This represents $.80 in favor of the client, later accounted for. 
January Term, 2012 
 
3
litigation expenses, $3,292 had been paid to a treating therapist, and $2,540.702 
had been retained by Sliwinski to pay for charges at Marymount Hospital. 
{¶ 7} Sliwinski, however, had withdrawn the entire amount of 
Mikolajczyk’s settlement from the bank account into which the check had been 
deposited.  In addition to the amount remitted to Mikolajczyk, he paid himself the 
$3,150 fee and paid $3,292 to the therapist.  The remaining portion of the 
settlement, or $2,540.70, which was to have been retained to pay Marymount 
Hospital, was not paid to any provider nor was it deposited in any trust account.  
Sliwinski did not pay Mikolajczyk the money owed to him, $2,541.50, until 
March 20, 2012. 
{¶ 8} Sliwinski stipulated that the acts and omissions in Count One 
constitute a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(c)(1) (requiring an attorney to have set 
forth a contingent-fee agreement in a writing signed by the client), and relator 
agreed to dismiss other the alleged violations in this count. 
Count Two—Representation of Dariusz Rejniak 
{¶ 9} Sliwinski stipulated that he undertook the representation of Dariusz 
Rejniak of Lodz, Poland, who was vacationing in Cleveland when he was injured 
in an automobile accident.  Sliwinski represented Rejniak on a contingency basis 
for 33 1/3 percent of any judgment to Rejniak, but the agreement was never 
reduced to writing.  Sliwinski reached a settlement with the insurer of the other 
driver for $9,000.  On or about September 13, 2009, Sliwinski received $9,000 
from the insurer.  This amount was deposited in Sliwinski’s trust account, but 
Sliwinski almost immediately withdrew it. 
{¶ 10} In August 2009, Sliwinski sent a settlement statement to Rejniak, 
with a check from his client trust account for $1,123.20.  The statement declared 
that Sliwinski had taken a contingent fee of $3,000 and that $4,751 was used for 
                                                 
2 The amount reflected in the settlement statement was $2,541.50.  The $2,540.70 amount 
accounts for the extra $.80 paid to Mikolajczyk. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
fees to Rejniak’s health-care providers.  Litigation expenses were $125.80.  
Rejniak could not cash the check in Poland, so Sliwinski put a stop payment on it 
and sent him a certified check at the end of September 2009. 
{¶ 11} In February 2010, on learning that some of Rejniak’s medical 
expenses had been paid by his Polish insurer, Sliwinski paid Rejniak’s agent, 
Teresa Mikolajczyk, the remaining amount, $1,969. 
{¶ 12} Sliwinski stipulated that the acts and omissions in Count Two 
constitute violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property 
of clients in an interest-bearing client trust account, separate from the lawyer’s 
own property) and 1.5(c)(1), and relator agreed to dismiss the other alleged 
violations in this count. 
Count Three—Representation of Kazimierz Chruscik 
{¶ 13} The panel and board found that in February 2009, Sliwinski agreed 
to represent Kazimierz Chruscik regarding creditor demands.  Sliwinski agreed to 
file a voluntary Chapter 7 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the 
Northern District of Ohio. 
{¶ 14} Chruscik testified that in 2008, Sliwinski had helped him with his 
divorce.  Because he was friends with both Chruscik and his wife, Sliwinski did 
not feel that he could represent Chruscik in the divorce.  However, he referred 
him to a divorce lawyer, drove him to appointments with the lawyer and appeared 
in court to translate during the divorce proceedings. 
{¶ 15} The board and panel found, based on the stipulations, that 
Sliwinski had quoted Chruscik the sum of $1,400 for the fees and court costs of 
his bankruptcy case, which was a discount from his usual fee.  Chruscik paid this 
amount in installments over several weeks.  No written agreement was executed 
as to this fee.  Chruscik delivered some bills and creditor correspondence that 
Sliwinski had requested to prepare the bankruptcy filing. 
January Term, 2012 
 
5
{¶ 16} The panel and board also found, based on the stipulations, that 
Sliwinski never filed the bankruptcy case.  Sliwinski expended considerable time 
and effort preparing the bankruptcy case but was never able to file it because 
Chruscik never gave him paperwork necessary for filing. 
{¶ 17} Chruscik demanded the return of his file, papers, and fees.  On 
May 28, 2009, when Chruscik appeared at Sliwinski’s office and asked for the 
file, Sliwinski presented Chruscik a statement. 
{¶ 18} The parties stipulated, and the panel and board found, that the 
statement was titled “final statement,” and that it reflected payments of $1,249, 
less than the amount paid by Chruscik.  The parties stipulated, and the panel and 
board found that it also contained an accounting of $3,312 for services allegedly 
rendered on the bankruptcy matter and $2,100 for fees in connection with 
Chruscik’s divorce case, in which Sliwinski was not engaged as counsel. 
{¶ 19} However, the document in question is titled “statement.”  It does 
reflect payments of $1,249.  But the document reflects a total accounting of 
$3,312, of which $1,476 was for the bankruptcy matter and $1,836 was for the 
divorce matter.  Sliwinski had only estimated the fees because he did not maintain 
records of time expended on various client matters. 
{¶ 20} The parties also stipulated, and the panel and board found, that 
Chruscik protested the “statement” and again demanded the return of unearned 
fees and costs.  He terminated Sliwinski’s engagement and filed a pro se 
bankruptcy petition, receiving a discharge in June 2009. 
{¶ 21} Sliwinski did not, at any time, deposit the $1,400 paid by Chruscik 
into a client trust account.  Sliwinski also refused to return $299, the amount paid 
by Chruscik for the filing fee in bankruptcy court. 
{¶ 22} Relator alleged, but Sliwinski did not stipulate, that these acts and 
omissions constitute a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
fee).  The panel and board found insufficient evidence to support the allegation 
and recommends dismissal of the charge. 
{¶ 23} Relator also alleged a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e) (requiring 
a lawyer to promptly refund any unearned fee on the lawyer’s withdrawal from 
employment).  The panel and board found clear and convincing evidence to 
support this violation. 
{¶ 24} Relator earlier agreed to dismiss the other alleged violations in this 
count. 
Count Four—IOLTA violations 
{¶ 25} Throughout 2009 and 2010, Sliwinski’s client trust account was 
used to pay personal and office expenses.  Sliwinski did not keep any record of 
the purpose of the various checks and withdrawals or the source of deposits.  
Moreover, Sliwinski has maintained his client trust account without any records 
of the balance due any client or the monthly reconciliation of accounts. 
{¶ 26} Sliwinski stipulated that the acts and omissions in Count Four 
constitute violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to 
maintain a record for each client on whose behalf funds are held), and 1.15(a)(5) 
(requiring a lawyer to perform and retain a monthly reconciliation of the funds 
held in the lawyer’s client trust account). 
{¶ 27} We adopt the findings of facts and misconduct as stipulated by the 
parties and found by the panel and board in Counts One, Two, and Four.  As to 
Count Three, we adopt the panel and board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 28} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
January Term, 2012 
 
7
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 29} The parties stipulated to several mitigating circumstances, 
including that Sliwinski has no prior disciplinary record, that he has cooperated 
with relator, and that he has distributed the remaining funds to Mikolajczyk.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d).  The panel and board also found as a 
mitigating factor that Sliwinski had no dishonest or selfish motive.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b).  The panel and board found that Sliwinski’s failure to 
properly maintain a client trust account necessarily involved a pattern of 
misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c). 
{¶ 30} Relator recommended a 6- to 12-month stayed suspension with the 
condition that a monitor be appointed to oversee Sliwinski’s accounting practices.  
Sliwinski has been given guidance by the CMBA on maintaining a client trust 
account and claims that he is now in full compliance.  He is committed to 
complying with any sanction imposed. 
{¶ 31} The panel and board recommend that Sliwinski be suspended for 
six months, stayed on the conditions that his accounting practices be subject to a 
monitor appointed by the CMBA during the stayed suspension.  The board and 
panel also recommend that Sliwinski be ordered to make restitution of $299 to 
Chruscik for the filing fee that he collected and failed to return.  The board also 
recommends that the costs of these proceedings be taxed to Sliwinski. 
{¶ 32} The recommended sanction is in line with the sanctions we have 
imposed in cases with similar misconduct.  See, e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Halliburton-Cohen, 106 Ohio St.3d 98, 2005-Ohio-3956, 832 N.E.2d 42 
(imposing a six-month stayed suspension for an attorney who charged a clearly 
excessive fee in the form of a “lost opportunity fee” and failed to refund fees on 
her withdrawal from representation); Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Ramos, 119 Ohio 
St.3d 36, 2008-Ohio-3235, 891 N.E.2d 730 (imposing a six-month stayed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
suspension for an attorney who neglected one client’s case and failed to properly 
maintain and account for fees that client had advanced);  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Cook, 121 Ohio St.3d 9, 2009-Ohio-259, 901 N.E.2d 225 (imposing a 
six-month stayed suspension for an attorney who charged a flat earned-upon-
receipt retainer plus a 20 percent contingent fee, failed to deposit unearned funds 
in a client trust account, and failed to maintain records and account for client 
funds in his possession); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Witt, 103 Ohio St.3d 434, 2004-
Ohio-5463, 816 N.E.2d 1036 (imposing a stayed six-month suspension for an 
attorney who told his clients that his fees were earned upon receipt and often 
made cash withdrawals from his client trust account without appropriate 
recordkeeping). 
{¶ 33} Therefore, based on the foregoing, we find that the six-month 
stayed suspension recommended by the board is the appropriate sanction for 
Sliwinski’s misconduct.  Accordingly, Teddy Sliwinski is suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for six months, all stayed on the conditions that he make 
restitution of $299 to Chruscik within 30 days of this order, that his accounting 
practices be subject to a monitor appointed by the CMBA in accordance with 
Gov.Bar R. V(9) for the duration of the stayed suspension, and that he commit no 
further misconduct.  If Sliwinski fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, 
the stay will be lifted, and he will serve the full six-month suspension.  Costs are 
taxed to Sliwinski. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
Heather M. Zirke, Bar Counsel, and Michael Hughes, for relator. 
Teddy Sliwinski, pro se. 
                              ________________________