Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Helfgott

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Helfgott, 109 Ohio St.3d 360, 2006-Ohio-2579.] 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. HELFGOTT. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Helfgott, 109 Ohio St.3d 360, 2006-Ohio-2579.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct involving dishonesty — Neglect of 
entrusted legal matters — Failure to refund unearned fees — Intentionally 
prejudicing a client during the course of professional relationship — 
Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation — Disbarment. 
(No. 2006-0094 — Submitted March 15, 2006 — Decided June 7, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-065. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Steven Isaac Helfgott of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0022884, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1978. 
{¶ 2} On September 10, 2004, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed 
an amended complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct.  
Respondent was served with a copy of the complaint but did not answer, and 
relator moved for default under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner 
appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline granted 
the motion, making findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation, 
all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
Gausman Grievance 
{¶ 3} In May 2001, David Gausman hired respondent to file a 
foreclosure action in Stark County.  Gausman paid respondent an $820 retainer 
for his services in August or September 2001.  Respondent sent Gausman a letter 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
in early September 2001 promising to file the foreclosure complaint the same 
week. 
{¶ 4} Gausman tried several times to contact respondent after receiving 
that letter, but did not hear from him until respondent sent another letter in 
February 2002.  In that second letter, respondent assured Gausman that the 
foreclosure complaint had been prepared and that a judgment could be expected 
within 60 days after the defendant had been served with a copy of the complaint. 
{¶ 5} Gausman wrote respondent in May 2002 seeking an update on the 
status of the foreclosure case.  Respondent never replied, never filed a complaint 
or any other documents on Gausman’s behalf, and never returned the retainer that 
Gausman had paid. 
{¶ 6} The master commissioner and the board found that respondent had 
thereby violated the following Disciplinary Rules: DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting 
conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) 
(prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 
6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(1) (requiring an attorney to seek the lawful objectives of a client through 
reasonable means), and 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting an attorney from intentionally 
failing to carry out a contract of professional employment). 
Shwallon Grievance 
{¶ 7} Stephanie Shwallon, a disabled individual with multiple sclerosis, 
hired respondent and paid a $500 retainer to him in September 2002 to represent 
her in a bankruptcy matter.  Respondent told her that she needed to file her 
bankruptcy petition immediately, and he advised her that she could stop paying 
her creditors.  In October 2002, Shwallon gave respondent all of the information 
he needed to file a bankruptcy petition on her behalf, and he assured her that he 
had put the information on a worksheet and would send it to her for her review. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 8} Although Shwallon tried repeatedly to contact respondent, he did 
not reply and never filed a bankruptcy petition on her behalf.  Shwallon’s 
creditors became more aggressive because she had stopped paying them on 
respondent’s advice.  She directed them to contact respondent, but he did not 
return their calls either. 
{¶ 9} In January 2003, respondent sent Shwallon a copy of another 
client’s bankruptcy petition.  She called respondent to point out the error, and he 
promised to send her the correct papers.  He never did. 
{¶ 10} According to Shwallon, respondent’s actions cost her the 
inheritance that she had received when her mother died. 
{¶ 11} The master commissioner and the board found that respondent had 
thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 2-110(A)(3) (requiring a lawyer to refund 
unearned fees upon withdrawal from professional employment), 6-101(A)(3), 7-
101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3) (barring an attorney from intentionally prejudicing or 
damaging a client during the course of the professional relationship). 
Failure to Cooperate 
{¶ 12} Relator sent multiple letters to respondent by certified and regular 
mail in 2002 asking him to respond to the grievances filed by Gausman, 
Shwallon, and a third person who had hired respondent to represent her.  
Respondent did not reply to any of the letters.  Relator also served a subpoena on 
respondent directing him to appear at a deposition in October 2002 in connection 
with relator’s investigation of the grievances, but respondent failed to appear. 
{¶ 13} The master commissioner and the board found that respondent had 
thereby violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring attorneys to cooperate with and 
assist in any disciplinary investigation). 
Sanction 
{¶ 14} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  
The board noted one mitigating factor: respondent’s lack of any prior disciplinary 
record.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  The board also found several aggravating 
factors: a selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, a lack of cooperation in the 
disciplinary process, harm to a vulnerable victim, and the failure to make 
restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (e), (h), and (i).  The board also 
noted that respondent had failed to comply with the biennial registration 
requirement for attorneys for the current and previous biennia.  Gov.Bar R. 
VI(1)(A). 
{¶ 15} Relator recommended that respondent be disbarred.  The master 
commissioner and the board instead recommended that respondent be indefinitely 
suspended. 
{¶ 16} We agree that respondent violated all of the Disciplinary Rules 
cited in the board’s report, and we agree with relator’s recommended sanction of 
disbarment.  Respondent’s neglect of his client’s interests and his inattentiveness 
to their inquiries, his dishonest assurances to his clients about his efforts on their 
behalf, his failure to return his clients’ fees after neglecting their cases, and his 
repeated failure to provide any information to relator during the investigation of 
his misconduct warrant the most severe sanction that we can impose. 
{¶ 17} We have imposed a sanction of disbarment in similar cases.  See, 
e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 104 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-Ohio-6897, 819 
N.E.2d 1112, ¶ 16 (explaining that the presumptive sanction is disbarment for 
those attorneys who accept retainers and then fail to carry out contracts of 
employment); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264, 2004-Ohio-
2683, 809 N.E.2d 1113, ¶ 15 (an attorney’s “persistent neglect of his clients’ 
interests, failure to perform as promised, failures to account for his clients’ 
money, and lack of any participation in the disciplinary proceedings” compelled 
January Term, 2006 
5 
his disbarment); Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fodal, 100 Ohio St.3d 310, 2003-Ohio-
5852, 798 N.E.2d 1082, ¶ 32 (ordering the disbarment of an attorney who 
“routinely took his clients’ money and provided nothing in return”). 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 19} Respondent’s misconduct consisted of only two cases of neglect 
and failure to return retainers, not the multiple or severe misconduct we usually 
require for disbarment.  Considering that he practiced law for 28 years with no 
discipline for misconduct, respondent may have an explanation for this sudden 
aberrant behavior, but because respondent did not cooperate in the investigation, 
we will never know.  Because of his long career without problems, I would 
indefinitely suspend respondent and give him an opportunity to make amends and 
restore his right to practice law upon meeting all conditions that we require for 
reinstatement.  Therefore, I respectfully dissent as to the sanction. 
 
RESNICK and LANZINGER, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., Rebecca W. Haverstick, and Sarah K. 
Rathke; Heather M. Zirke, for relator. 
______________________