Title: Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marinelli

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marinelli, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2570.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-2570 
STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MARINELLI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marinelli, Slip Opinion  
No. 2015-Ohio-2570.] 
Attorney misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including 
failing to provide competent representation to clients and failing to act 
with reasonable diligence in representing clients—Two-year suspension, 
with one year stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2014-0971—Submitted February 4, 2015—Decided July 1, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-040. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Deborah Marie Marinelli of North Canton, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0074193, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
2001. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} In a December 2013 amended complaint, relator, Stark County Bar 
Association, charged Marinelli with nearly 200 violations of the Professional 
Conduct Rules arising from her alleged abandonment of bankruptcy matters for 
23 clients.  The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and submitted stipulated exhibits.  As part of 
the stipulation agreement, relator agreed to withdraw more than 60 alleged rule 
violations. 
{¶ 3} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline1 conducted a hearing and issued a report, finding that Marinelli’s 
conduct violated more than 95 Professional Conduct Rules—related to her failing 
to provide competent representation, failing to act with reasonable diligence, 
failing to reasonably communicate with her clients about the status of their legal 
matters, failing to promptly refund unearned fees, and knowingly failing to 
respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an 
investigation—and recommending that we dismiss more than 90 alleged 
violations (including those that relator had agreed to withdraw) as being 
unsupported by the evidence.  On these findings, the panel recommended that 
Marinelli be suspended for two years with the second year stayed on stringent 
conditions and that she be required to serve a two-year period of monitored 
probation upon reinstatement to the practice of law.  The board adopted the 
panel’s findings and recommendations.  No objections have been filed. 
{¶ 4} The board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by 
clear and convincing evidence, and therefore, we adopt them.  We also agree with 
the board’s recommended sanction, and we suspend Marinelli from the practice of 
law for two years with the second year stayed on conditions and order her to serve 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
a two-year period of monitored probation upon her reinstatement to the practice of 
law. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} All of the 23 counts charged in the complaint involved clients who 
retained Marinelli to handle their personal bankruptcy matters.  Regarding the 
clients in 20 of the counts, she did not file a bankruptcy petition on the client’s 
behalf (Counts One through Ten, Count Twelve, Count Fourteen, and Counts 
Sixteen through Twenty-Three).  In many of those cases, the clients had made 
payments toward the quoted retainer and required filing fee.  Some of them had 
paid those fees in full and provided all of the information necessary for Marinelli 
to prepare their bankruptcy petitions. 
{¶ 6} In late 2012, after her husband filed for divorce, Marinelli stopped 
communicating with clients, stopped going to her law office, and stopped paying 
her office rent.  Her landlord served her with an eviction notice in March 2013, 
and before the eviction process was complete, relator took possession of her client 
files pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(8)(F) (now Gov.Bar R. V(26)(A)).  At the panel 
hearing, Marinelli produced cashier’s checks made payable to each of the 20 
clients from whom she had received payments but never filed a bankruptcy 
petition.  Those checks were distributed to the clients after the hearing and 
constituted a full refund of all payments received from them. 
{¶ 7} The board adopted the parties’ stipulations of fact and found that 
Marinelli had committed 20 violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to 
provide competent representation to a client), 20 violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 
(requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 20 
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter), 20 violations of Prof.Cond.R. 
1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the 
client is entitled to receive), three violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information 
from the client), and 17 violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary 
authority during an investigation). 
{¶ 8} The board recommends that we dismiss the remainder of the 
violations alleged in the complaint—some of which relator had agreed to 
withdraw and others that, although Marinelli stipulated to having committed, the 
board found had not been established by sufficient evidence.  That 
recommendation includes the dismissal of all the violations alleged in Count 
Thirteen of the complaint. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} In determining what sanction to recommend to this court, the board 
considered the ethical duties the lawyer violated, the presence of aggravating and 
mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B),2 and the sanctions imposed in 
similar cases. 
{¶ 10} Aggravating factors stipulated by the parties and found by the 
board include that Marinelli engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving 
multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, and caused harm 
to vulnerable clients.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), and (h).  And in 
mitigation, the board found that Marinelli did not have a prior disciplinary record, 
did not act with a dishonest or selfish motive, and presented evidence of her good 
character and reputation apart from the charged misconduct.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (e). 
{¶ 11} Noting that Marinelli had kept her clients’ money for several years 
without providing any significant legal services to them, disregarded relator’s 
request for responses to numerous grievances filed against her, and had not yet 
                                                 
2 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
begun counseling for her depression, the board declined to adopt several 
additional mitigating factors to which the parties had stipulated. 
{¶ 12} The board noted that in Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Pritchard, 131 
Ohio St.3d 97, 2012-Ohio-44, 961 N.E.2d 165, we indefinitely suspended an 
attorney who abandoned approximately 20 client matters while in deep depression 
triggered by marital problems.  It distinguished Pritchard’s conduct from that of 
Marinelli, however, on the grounds that some of his misconduct predated his 
depression, he continued accepting money from clients during his personal crisis, 
acted with a dishonest motive, and made no attempts at restitution. 
{¶ 13} The board also cited, with approval, several cases in which we 
imposed two-year, partially stayed suspensions on attorneys who committed 
misconduct while suffering from mental illness or substance abuse.  Based on the 
number of violations that occurred when Marinelli abandoned her clients’ matters 
and the fact that she had taken only the initial steps toward rehabilitation at the 
time of the panel hearing, the board found that the facts of this case most 
resembled those of Erie-Huron Grievance Commt. v. Stoll, 127 Ohio St.3d 290, 
2010-Ohio-5985, 939 N.E.2d 166 (imposing a two-year suspension with the 
second year stayed on conditions on an attorney who neglected 22 legal matters 
that had been entrusted to him and who suffered from depression), and 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Travis, 101 Ohio St.3d 322, 2004-Ohio-785, 804 N.E.2d 
969 (imposing a two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions on an 
attorney who, while suffering personal hardships, neglected 28 cases, resulting in 
the dismissal of multiple criminal appeals and causing prejudice or damage to 14 
separate clients). 
{¶ 14} Recognizing that the primary purpose of the disciplinary process is 
not to punish the offender but to protect the public from lawyers who are 
unworthy of the trust and confidence essential to the attorney-client relationship, 
the board here found that a two-year suspension with the final year stayed on 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
stringent conditions and a two-year period of monitored probation will adequately 
protect the public. 
{¶ 15} We adopt the board’s recommendation and hereby suspend 
Deborah Marie Marinelli from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with the 
second year stayed on the conditions that she (1) obtain counseling for her 
depression, enter into a mental-health contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”), and comply with all recommendations of her counselor and 
the requirements of her OLAP contract, (2) provide a recommendation from her 
counselor, OLAP, or both, stating that she is fully competent to return to the 
practice of law, (3) establish an Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (“IOLTA”) in 
accordance with Prof.Cond.R. 1.15, (4) comply with any and all mandatory 
continuing-legal-education requirements imposed by this court, (5) pay the costs 
of this action, and (6) engage in no further misconduct.  If Marinelli fails to 
comply with these conditions, the stay will be revoked and she will serve the full 
two-year suspension.  Upon reinstatement, Marinelli shall serve a two-year period 
of monitored probation, during which she must (1) continue to comply with the 
recommendations of her counselor and the requirements of any OLAP contract 
and (2) permit relator to monitor her IOLTA.  Costs are taxed to Marinelli. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
Richard S. Milligan, Bar Counsel; and Anthony W. Koukoutas, for relator. 
Charles J. Kettlewell, L.L.C., and Charles J. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
________________