Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Grdina

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Grdina, 101 Ohio St.3d 150, 2004-Ohio-299.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GRDINA. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Grdina, 101 Ohio St.3d 150, 2004-Ohio-299.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with one year of 
sanction stayed on condition that respondent comply with his OLAP 
contract — Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — 
Causing prejudice or damage to a client — Failing to maintain client’s 
funds in an identifiable bank account — Failing to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 2003-1530 — Submitted October 20, 2003 — Decided February 11, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-36. 
_________________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Michael F. Grdina of Mayfield Heights, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0038399, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1964.  On 
May 17, 2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent in an amended 
complaint with multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  
Respondent did not answer the original or the amended complaint, but after he 
retained counsel, the parties submitted comprehensive stipulations, including a 
proposed sanction for the agreed-upon misconduct.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and made findings 
of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation. 
{¶2} 
At the outset, the parties stipulated that respondent has not 
registered as an attorney since September 3, 1997, and that his law license has 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
been suspended since June 1, 2000, for his failure to comply with continuing legal 
education requirements.  See Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) and X. 
{¶3} 
With respect to the first four counts of the complaint, the parties 
stipulated that respondent agreed in June 1999 to safeguard Sherrie Filliater’s 
interests in the estate of Thomas D. Parker, her deceased father; the Thomas D. 
Parker Trust; and the Fritzie A.M. Parker Trust and to analyze three related trusts 
on her behalf.  Filliater paid respondent $2,000.  Respondent reviewed the trusts 
and spent several days in conference with lawyers who represented others’ 
interests.  He later estimated that the cost of this time exceeded the amount of his 
retainer. 
{¶4} 
Filliater, who was the executor of her father’s estate, also retained 
respondent to represent her concerning paternity issues involving another 
relative’s child.  Respondent’s expertise was in tax and estate planning; however, 
Filliater ultimately prevailed upon him to accept the representation.  In January 
2001, Filliater paid respondent an additional $1,000 for his services. 
{¶5} 
According to the stipulations, the estate was worth between $1.2 
and 2 million, with the probate estate having a value of approximately $38,000.  
While administering this estate, respondent misrepresented to Filliater at least 
once that he had filed necessary papers in probate court when, in fact, he had not.  
Respondent also delayed in completing federal and state tax returns for the estate 
and failed to file them timely, resulting in penalties against the estate.  In a letter 
dated April 14, 2000, Filliater’s husband discharged respondent for his 
misrepresentation and inaction.  Respondent later refunded Filliater’s $3,000 in 
full. 
{¶6} 
The panel found, consistent with the parties’ stipulations, that 
respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted 
January Term, 2004 
3 
legal matter), and 7-101(A)(3) (causing prejudice or damage to a client) in 
representing Filliater. 
{¶7} 
The panel found with respect to another count, consistent with the 
parties’ stipulations, that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-
101(A)(3) by failing to prepare and file papers for the administration of the estate 
of Lucille Clark’s husband.  Respondent did not file a state tax return as required, 
resulting in penalties against the estate. 
{¶8} 
Both clients submitted grievances concerning respondent’s neglect.  
During its investigation, relator sent four certified letters of inquiry concerning the 
Clark grievance to respondent, but these letters were returned either as 
undeliverable or unclaimed.  Yet respondent did respond to a letter of inquiry sent 
to the same address about Filliater’s grievance.  Respondent also promised to 
respond to a subsequent letter inquiring about Clark’s grievance but never did.  
The panel thus found respondent in violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to 
cooperate in an investigation of misconduct).  However, the panel also found that 
respondent cooperated completely in the disciplinary proceedings once he 
retained counsel. 
{¶9} 
Finally, the panel found respondent in violation of DR 9-102(A) 
(failing to maintain client’s funds in an identifiable bank account), consistent with 
the stipulations, because from March 1999 through February 2002, he frequently 
paid personal bills from clients’ funds deposited in his trust account. 
{¶10} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel 
reviewed the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  The panel found 
respondent’s failure to register and license suspension to be aggravating.  In 
addition, the panel found that respondent had engaged in a pattern of misconduct 
and multiple offenses by committing similar misconduct with respect to two 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
separate clients.  The panel found as mitigating that respondent, who had 
voluntarily stopped practicing in April 2000, had no prior disciplinary history and 
apparently had been a competent practitioner for many years before the 
underlying events. 
{¶11} The panel also considered extenuating the reasons for which 
respondent decided to stop practicing.  After respondent’s wife died in 1995, he 
was shaken by the loss and began drinking alcohol heavily and, eventually, 
uncontrollably.  His alcohol abuse overcame his ability to represent clients 
effectively and often curbed his desire to work at all. 
{¶12} In the summer of 2000, relator referred respondent to the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), and he entered an extended alcoholism 
treatment program recommended by OLAP’s executive director.  Respondent has 
since completed that program, become an active member of Alcoholics 
Anonymous, and is in the process of complying with a two-year OLAP recovery 
contract he signed on June 14, 2002.  The associate director of OLAP, who is 
assisting in respondent’s recovery program, has certified that respondent “is 
committed to working a recovery program in order to maintain his sobriety.” 
{¶13} The panel found that respondent’s neglect was largely the result of 
his alcoholism.  In addition to respondent’s testimony on this fact, a cousin close 
to respondent, a retired CPA who helped respondent by driving him to and taking 
notes at conferences concerning the Filliater matter, confirmed that drinking had 
gradually compromised respondent’s professional conscientiousness.  The panel 
also found that respondent had expressed remorse for his misconduct,  had been 
forthright during the disciplinary proceeding, had not acted out of self-interest, 
and had made restitution to Filliater.  Finally, the panel found that respondent had 
shown dedicated efforts to manage his alcoholism and that there was no evidence 
of misappropriation in connection with respondent’s having commingled funds. 
January Term, 2004 
5 
{¶14} Relator and respondent jointly suggested that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law for two years with one year stayed.  The panel 
recommended this sanction, adding that the one-year period should be stayed on 
the condition that respondent, upon any petition for reinstatement, present proof 
of his having satisfactorily completed his OLAP contract.  The board adopted the 
panel’s findings of misconduct and its recommendation. 
{¶15} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 
6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(A), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), as found by 
the board.  We also concur in the recommended sanction.  Accordingly, 
respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years; 
however, one year of this sanction is stayed on the condition that respondent 
continue to comply with his OLAP contract.  If following the year of actual 
suspension respondent has complied with continuing legal education and attorney 
registration requirements and applies for reinstatement, his petition shall include 
proof of his continued compliance with the OLAP recovery contract.  
Furthermore, if respondent fails to comply with his OLAP contract, the stay shall 
be lifted, and he shall serve the entire two-year suspension period.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Bruce Tyler Wick, for respondent.