Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Gueli

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Gueli, 119 Ohio St.3d 434, 2008-Ohio-4786.] 
 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. GUELI. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Gueli, 119 Ohio St.3d 434, 2008-Ohio-4786.] 
Attorneys – Misconduct – Pervasive pattern of neglect, deception, abandonment 
of clients, retention of unearned fees, and failure to cooperate with 
investigation – Permanent disbarment. 
(No. 2008-0485 — Submitted May 6, 2008 — Decided September 25, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-008. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Christopher Gueli, Attorney Registration No. 
0064873, last registration address in Columbus, Ohio, was admitted to the 
practice of law in Ohio in 1995.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline has recommended that we permanently disbar respondent, based on 
findings that he violated an array of ethical duties owed to numerous clients.  We 
agree that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility as found 
by the board and that disbarment is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged respondent with nine 
counts of professional misconduct, alleging numerous violations of the 
Disciplinary Rules as well as failure to cooperate in investigations of this 
misconduct in violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  Relator served respondent notice 
of the complaint, as amended, at his place of employment by certified mail and 
hand-delivery.  Respondent did not answer. 
{¶ 3} Relator moved for default under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A panel of 
the board dismissed Count III, but found that the remaining eight counts had been 
proved at least in part by clear and convincing evidence.  Finding that respondent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
had engaged in a pervasive pattern of misconduct, the panel recommended his 
permanent disbarment.  The board adopted the panel’s findings and 
recommendation. 
I.  Misconduct 
{¶ 4} As alleged in Count IX, which recounts respondent’s victimization 
of multiple clients, respondent has stolen from, deceived, neglected, and 
abandoned clients one after another.  As alleged in Count VI, he has undertaken 
the representation of plaintiffs in their pursuit of a wrongful-death claim against 
his own brother, endangering the interests of the decedent’s children.  The other 
improprieties alleged in Counts I, II, IV, V, VII, and VIII have also been proved 
with sworn or documentary proof as required by Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  We begin 
our review with the very worst of respondent’s misdeeds and then take the counts 
in order. 
A.  Count IX – Grievances for Misappropriation of Fees from Multiple Clients 
{¶ 5} During 2006 and 2007, respondent agreed to represent 13 separate 
clients in a variety of proceedings, mostly divorce and other domestic-relations 
disputes but also in a criminal matter and on a charge of contempt of court.  These 
clients paid fees of varying amounts, for a total of more than $15,000.  In each 
case, respondent failed to complete the work for which he had been paid and then 
abandoned the clients without notice. 
{¶ 6} In addition to the money he kept despite doing nothing, respondent 
also retained $1,500 that he was to distribute to the ex-spouse of one of these 
clients from the sale of a house.  Respondent routinely skipped court dates, 
stranding his clients, and ignored his clients’ attempts to contact him.  He has now 
apparently moved out of state. 
{¶ 7} With his theft and flagrant disregard of clients’ interests, 
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects 
January Term, 2008 
3 
on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 2-106(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
collecting an excessive fee), 7-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally 
damaging a client during professional employment), 9-102(B)(3) (requiring a 
lawyer to maintain records of all funds and appropriately account to client), and 9-
102(B)(4) (failing to promptly deliver property to which the client is entitled). 
B.  Count VI — The Barnhill Estate Grievances 
{¶ 8} On April 20, 2002, John Gueli, respondent’s half-brother, fell 
asleep at the wheel of his van, causing it to leave the highway and flip over 
several times.  One of his passengers, James V. Barnhill Jr., was killed.  John 
Gueli’s wife, who was also injured in the accident, was the decedent’s sister.  The 
decedent was unmarried at the time of his death, but had three minor children. 
{¶ 9} In October 2002, as counsel for the estate, respondent asked the 
probate court to authorize the decedent’s father, James V. Barnhill Sr., to 
administer the estate, giving notice on the application that the administrator 
anticipated a wrongful-death action.  There is some indication that the decedent’s 
father and other family members approved of respondent’s serving both as 
counsel for the estate and for plaintiffs in the wrongful-death suit against 
respondent’s own brother.  During respondent’s involvement, however, no one 
moved for the appointment of a guardian to protect the interests of the decedent’s 
underage children. 
{¶ 10} Respondent represented the administrator of the estate and also 
acted as plaintiffs’ counsel from October 2002 until July 2005.  During that time, 
the conflicting interests of respondent, his brother, and the Barnhill family had 
prompted Franklin County Probate Judge Lawrence Belskis to (1) appoint a 
master commissioner to investigate the matter and (2) enlist the aid of the 
successor administrator, appointed after the decedent’s father died, in providing 
the court with information on respondent’s management of the estate in light of 
those conflicting interests.  Upon review of respondent’s conduct, Judge Belskis 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
filed a grievance against respondent.  The mother of one of the decedent’s 
children also filed a grievance. 
1.  Improprieties in Administering the Barnhill Estate 
{¶ 11} Respondent jeopardized the interests of beneficiaries and creditors 
in administering the estate of James V. Barnhill Jr.  The application to administer 
the estate, which showed assets of approximately $64,000, listed a claim against 
the estate by decedent’s father of over $9,000.  Respondent did not obtain the 
required probate court approval for this claim, rendering it uncollectible. 
{¶ 12} In April 2003, respondent filed the inventory and appraisal and a 
schedule of assets for the estate.  The inventory and appraisal summary listed 
tangible personal property valued at $1,102.53; however, the schedule of assets 
listed no tangible personal property.  The schedule of assets also listed a Fifth 
Third Bank account containing $10,102.53; the inventory and appraisal did not. 
{¶ 13} In January 2004, respondent filed a schedule of assets and an 
amended inventory and appraisal, deleting without explanation the $1,102.53 in 
tangible personal property and the reference to the Fifth Third Bank account.  
Respondent failed to list in either the original or the amended inventory and 
appraisal (1) an IRA payable to the decedent’s estate, (2) the balance of a savings 
account shown as closed in the estate financial records, and (3) state and federal 
tax refunds due at the date of death.  Respondent also did not list any assets such 
as personal effects, vehicles, or final wages due. 
{¶ 14} Respondent filed an action to sell some rental property owned by 
the decedent.  The sale closed in April 2004 with net proceeds of approximately 
$42,700.  Respondent did not, however, obtain probate court approval for the sale 
before the closing. 
{¶ 15} Respondent never opened a checking account for the estate, using 
instead a joint account in the names of the decedent’s father and sister for receipts 
and disbursements.  In July 2004, he filed the administrator’s “1st Partial 
January Term, 2008 
5 
Fiduciary’s Account.”  He failed to account in this filing for two years of receipts 
and disbursements from the estate, all completed through the joint checking 
account. 
{¶ 16} Respondent also did nothing to collect the $9,930.34 balance of the 
decedent’s IRA.  He never obtained a taxpayer identification number for the 
estate and filed no federal, state, or city tax returns.  As of November 2005, 
respondent still had not fully documented the sale of the rental property, 
precluding the successor administrator from closing the estate.  In the end, 
respondent’s mismanagement unnecessarily delayed distributions and cost the 
estate extra administrator fees, court costs, interest income, and potential tax 
penalties. 
2.  Respondent’s Conflict and the Consequences 
{¶ 17} Respondent also jeopardized the interests of the decedent’s 
children by concurrently representing the adverse interests of the decedent’s 
family and the respondent’s own brother.  Within days of the accident, Grange 
Insurance, John Gueli’s carrier, began sending letters to the estate, offering 
medical payments to assist with medical and funeral bills.  In February 2003, 
respondent wrote to Grange, forbidding further contact with the estate’s 
administrator and directing that all correspondence be sent only to respondent.  
Despite repeated requests, Grange was never able to obtain from the administrator 
or respondent information as to the decedent’s medical bills or wages at the time 
of death.  Finally in early August 2003, after speaking with respondent, Grange 
sent a check for $250,000, which was the policy limit, and a request for release.  
Respondent accepted the check and directed the administrator to sign the release, 
waiving all claims of the estate against Grange and respondent’s brother. 
{¶ 18} Respondent then tried to charge the estate $37,500 in attorney fees 
for settling with Grange.  Judge Belskis, who had already appointed a master 
commissioner to investigate the conflict, denied the claim.  Respondent at some 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
point assured Judge Belskis, the probate master commissioner, and the successor 
administrator that Disciplinary Counsel had advised him that his representation 
posed no ethical problems; however, he never produced any evidence to this 
effect. 
{¶ 19} Underscoring the divided loyalties at stake, respondent apparently 
took no action beyond accepting the $250,000 check from Grange to recover 
assets from his brother on behalf of the estate.  According to the probate master 
commissioner, respondent’s brother had considerable real estate holdings and 
owned part of a family business.  Nothing in respondent’s case file, however, 
suggested that he considered investigating and pursuing these assets. 
{¶ 20} Without any apparent reason for the delay, respondent did not seek 
probate court approval for the Grange settlement and distribution of the proceeds 
until July 6, 2004, nearly a year after the settlement.  The relevant statute of 
limitations had already expired by that time.  Respondent then continued to hold 
the $250,000, putting off the successor administrator’s demands for the money 
until August 2005.  The proceeds were in respondent’s client trust account for two 
years, earning only $634.89 in interest. 
3.  Violations 
{¶ 21} Respondent badly mishandled the Barnhill estate and, despite a 
patent conflict of interest, undertook the Barnhill wrongful-death claim, using his 
position to protect his brother at the expense of the decedent’s children.  He 
thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving fraud, deceit, 
dishonesty, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(1) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from handling a legal matter he or she is not competent to 
handle), 6-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from handling a legal matter without 
adequate preparation), and 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting the neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter). 
January Term, 2008 
7 
{¶ 22} Respondent had no records that justified charging the Barnhill  
estate $37,500 in attorney fees.  We therefore also find him in violation of DR 9-
102(B)(3).  Moreover, by retaining proceeds from the Grange settlement, 
respondent violated DR 9-102(B)(4). 
{¶ 23} With his conflict of interest relative to the Barnhill wrongful-death 
claim, respondent violated DR 5-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer, except with 
consent after full disclosure of attendant risks, from accepting or continuing 
employment when the lawyer’s professional judgment on the client’s behalf may 
be affected by the lawyer’s personal or financial interests), 5-105(A) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from representing clients with conflicting interests except when it is 
obvious that the lawyer can adequately represent the interest of each, and each 
client consents after full disclosure of possible effect of multiple representation on 
lawyer’s exercise of professional judgment), and 7-102(A)(3) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from failing to disclose what the lawyer is required by law to reveal). 
C.  Count I – The Boysaw Grievance 
{¶ 24} Respondent represented Selina J. Boysaw in matters relating to her 
divorce from May 2002 until she discharged him in January 2005.  In her 
grievance, Boysaw alleged various lapses in respondent’s performance, including 
his failure to remit proceeds from the sale of real estate and to return her case file 
on request.  Respondent appeared at a deposition during relator’s investigation 
and disputed Boysaw’s claims, explaining to the panel’s satisfaction all but the 
failure to promptly return her file. 
{¶ 25} During the deposition, respondent produced records of his 
accounts receivable for Boysaw and their fee agreement.  Upon relator’s request 
for further documentation of his fee, respondent promised to produce his client 
trust-account records for the period he represented her.  Relator continued the 
deposition for this purpose, but respondent thereafter failed to appear in response 
to subpoenas and never produced the requested records. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
{¶ 26} Respondent violated DR 9-102(B)(4) by failing to return Boysaw’s 
file upon his discharge.  He also violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by ignoring 
relator’s request for the production of documents. 
D.  Count II – The Miller Grievance 
{¶ 27} In July 2005, Nina J. Miller retained respondent to represent her in 
a divorce and paid him $1,500.  A few days later, she instructed respondent not to 
pursue the matter.  When Miller did not receive a refund of any unearned fees 
despite repeated requests, she filed a grievance against respondent. 
{¶ 28} Respondent appeared at a deposition during relator’s investigation 
and disputed Miller’s claim.  He testified that he still held an unused $412 balance 
from her retainer in his client trust account because he had thought the case was 
still open.  Respondent explained that Miller had wavered on the divorce, but only 
because of pressure from her husband, and that she had most recently elected to 
proceed. 
{¶ 29} Respondent produced his client’s file during the deposition.  He 
also promised to produce additional records to document his work in her case.  
Relator continued the deposition for this purpose, but respondent thereafter failed 
to appear in response to subpoena and never produced the requested 
documentation. 
{¶ 30} By ignoring relator’s request for the production of documents, 
respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
E.  Count IV – The Cullison Grievance 
{¶ 31} In June 2004, Cheryl M. Cullison paid respondent $712.50 to 
prepare a shared-parenting plan.  Respondent knew that Cullison needed the plan 
by mid-August 2004 so that she could enroll her children in school; however, he 
did not submit the plan for court approval until September 2004 and did not 
obtain approval until November 2004.  Over one year later, Cullison learned that 
January Term, 2008 
9 
child-support authorities were pursuing her husband for arrearages that 
respondent had failed to address in the plan. 
{¶ 32} By failing to conscientiously complete or file the shared-parenting 
agreement for Cullison, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3). 
F.  Count V – The Farley Grievance 
{¶ 33} Mackie and Carolyn Farley retained respondent in July 2004 to 
defend them against a lawsuit by the victim of a dog attack.  The Farleys paid 
respondent $1,300 and gave him all the papers they had received from the 
plaintiff’s lawyer.  Respondent assured them he was taking care of their defense. 
{¶ 34} Respondent did not answer the pending complaint or even file an 
appearance.  He ignored two letters offering to settle the dispute.  At some point, 
respondent also appeared at the courthouse with the Farleys, left them waiting 
outside, and then told them that the hearing had been postponed.  He later billed 
the Farleys another $100. 
{¶ 35} Respondent met with the Farleys and claimed to have done some 
research, but apparently did nothing else in their case.  He never accounted to 
them for their fees or refunded any of their money.  In February 2006, the court 
granted a default judgment against the Farleys for $103,095, plus costs.  The 
Farleys’ bank account was seized, their wages were garnished, and liens were 
placed on their home. 
{¶ 36} With his false assurances and pretense of a postponed hearing, 
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6).  Despite 
being paid $1,400, respondent did not even file an answer for the Farleys, causing 
a default judgment to be entered against them, and thereby violated DR 2-106(A) 
and 7-101(A)(3).  By failing to account for his fees, respondent violated DR 9-
102(B)(3). 
G.  Count VII – The Ogg Grievance 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
{¶ 37} Kimberly Ogg hired respondent in November 2002 to represent her 
in a divorce.  He promised to prevent the impending transfer of her family’s home 
to her husband.  Ogg paid respondent at least $1,500 of the $2,500 fee he quoted 
to complete work in the case. 
{¶ 38} Respondent represented Ogg at a contempt hearing, a deposition, 
and at a final divorce hearing.  The parties reached an agreement, and the divorce 
was finalized in July 2003.  Though Ogg at that time owed respondent no more 
than $1,000 in fees, respondent sent her a bill for $2,200. 
{¶ 39} As part of the divorce settlement, Ogg’s ex-husband paid her 
$25,000 as her share of the equity in the family home and made the check payable 
to respondent and Ogg jointly.  Respondent had Ogg endorse the check to him 
with the implausible explanation that he was to pay her the funds in installments 
because the judge feared that she would flee the jurisdiction.  Respondent paid 
Ogg just $7,500.  Later that day, respondent told Ogg to tear up the check, which 
she did, relying on his “explanation” that her husband’s check had not yet cleared. 
{¶ 40} Several weeks later, respondent sent Ogg a check for $7,000, 
promising to pay the remaining $18,000 “soon.”  Respondent kept Ogg’s money 
for the next three years and then claimed that Ogg owed him $15,000 for her 
divorce.  Respondent has never accounted for Ogg’s money, and she has since 
had to rely on Southeastern Ohio Legal Services for assistance in retrieving her 
money. 
{¶ 41} Respondent lied about and never returned all of Ogg’s $25,000.  
He thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 2-106(A), 7-
101(A)(3), 9-102(B)(3), and 9-102(B)(4). 
H.  Count VIII – The Foster Grievance 
{¶ 42} In March 2002, Saundra K. Foster and her husband consulted 
respondent about filing a medical-malpractice claim concerning  a procedure her 
husband had had in 2001 and his follow-up medical care through March 2002.  
January Term, 2008 
11 
Respondent promised to file the action and obtain an expert opinion to support 
their case.  He did not file the action for more than two years and in the interim 
evaded the Fosters’ inquiries as to why he had not. 
{¶ 43} Not until July 2004 did respondent finally file the Foster action in 
court.  Two more years passed.  He eventually told the Fosters that they had a 
court date on July 31, 2006.  The Fosters appeared on that day, but respondent did 
not.  The Fosters then learned from the court that their case had been dismissed 
over one year before.  When they arrived home, they found a voicemail message 
from respondent that the trial had been postponed because respondent had to be 
out of town. 
{¶ 44} The Fosters asked respondent for their case file and hired another 
lawyer to pursue their case and to sue respondent for malpractice.  In reviewing 
the case file as returned by respondent, the new lawyer saw that documents and 
material evidence were missing.  Respondent never answered when his successor 
tried to reclaim missing portions of the Foster file. 
{¶ 45} The Fosters obtained a default judgment against respondent in their 
malpractice suit.  In the course of that proceeding, the Fosters discovered that 
respondent had transferred his property interests in his home and law office to 
members of his family to stop the Fosters from collecting on the judgment. 
{¶ 46} Respondent lied to his clients in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-
102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6).  He did not conscientiously pursue their medical-
malpractice action in violation of DR 6-101(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(3).  
He also violated DR 9-102(B)(4) by failing to return client property. 
I.  Wholesale Violations of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) 
{¶ 47} During the deposition discussed in Count II, respondent also 
answered questions about the allegations that Boysaw raised in Count I.  But after 
that proceeding, respondent did not respond to relator’s investigative efforts, 
ignoring letters of inquiry, subpoenas seeking his deposition testimony, and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
requests for the production of documents.  We find that respondent thereby 
violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
II. Sanction 
{¶ 48} Repeated misconduct of this magnitude and variety demands only 
one result.  Respondent is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel and David S. Bloomfield and Edward W. 
Erfurt III, for relator. 
______________________