Title: Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Leb

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Leb, 87 Ohio St.3d 224, 1999-Ohio-31.] 
 
 
 
 
 
STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. LEB. 
[Cite as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Leb (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 224.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Repeated neglect of 
client matters and misappropriation of client funds. 
(No. 99-1158  — Submitted August 25, 1999 — Decided November 10, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-25. 
 
In January 1995, respondent, Gerald P. Leb of Canton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0014971, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Bruce Bleiman in the 
Summit County Court of Common Pleas.  At trial, respondent appeared and 
announced that Bleiman was not present and that respondent’s mental disability 
prevented him from being prepared to proceed.  The magistrate entered judgment 
against Bleiman on the complaint and granted the defendant a default judgment as 
to liability on the counterclaim. 
 
In March 1995, respondent filed a complaint in Canton Municipal Court on 
behalf of Dennis Stargen.  After the case was scheduled for trial, respondent 
informed the court that he would not appear for trial and that the case would be 
dismissed.  The court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute, after advising 
respondent that it would do so if respondent did not prepare an entry of dismissal 
or if the parties failed to appear.  In July 1996, respondent informed Stargen that he 
had dismissed the case without Stargen’s permission and admitted that he might be 
subject to a disciplinary grievance or legal malpractice proceeding. 
 
In November 1995, James Nichols retained respondent to represent him in 
an employment matter.  Respondent filed suit on behalf of Nichols in the Wayne 
County Court of Common Pleas, and the case was scheduled for a jury trial to 
begin on April 21, 1997.  Respondent did not take any depositions during the 
 
 
2
pending case, failed to appear for trial, and notified neither the court nor his client 
of his absence.  In May 1997, the case was voluntarily dismissed without 
prejudice.  Respondent later advised the court that he had been suffering from 
severe personal and psychological difficulties.  Respondent ultimately settled 
Nichols’s claim with one of the several defendants in the case for $7,500.  
Respondent took no fee from this sum, giving the entire amount to Nichols. 
 
In 1993, Randall Wilt paid respondent $2,500 as a retainer and an additional 
amount for the filing fee to represent him in a dispute concerning a boat he had 
purchased.  Respondent filed suit on behalf of Wilt in federal district court.  
Respondent failed, however, to respond to summary judgment and dismissal 
motions filed by the defendants and failed to communicate to Wilt that the 
defendants had offered to settle the case for $2,500.  In May 1995, the court 
granted the motions. 
 
In May 1995, Michael and Kathleen Largent paid respondent a $2,000 
retainer and $125 filing fee to represent them on their claims against Green Local 
School District.  The Largents subsequently paid respondent an additional $2,500.  
Respondent never filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Largents, and although they 
requested in 1996 that respondent provide them an itemization of his fees,  it was 
not until February 1997 that he produced a statement that reflected charges of 
$2,031.25.  Respondent never returned the balance of the funds due the Largents. 
 
In February 1996, Ellis and Sandra Lehman paid respondent a $2,000 
retainer and a filing fee of $125 to represent them in a claim against two mortgage 
companies.  In December 1996, the Lehmans discharged respondent after he had 
failed to file a lawsuit on their behalf.  Upon request of the Lehmans for a refund 
of their retainer and filing fee, respondent claimed that the retainer was 
nonrefundable and that he had performed a significant amount of work on their 
 
 
3
behalf, although he was unable to produce any time records.  After the Lehmans 
filed a grievance, respondent refunded the filing fee but not the retainer. 
 
On April 6, 1998, relator, Stark County Bar Association, filed a six-count 
complaint charging respondent with violating several Disciplinary Rules, and the 
matter was subsequently heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel found that respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(neglecting an entrusted legal matter) on the Bleiman, Nichols, Wilt, Largent, and 
Lehman matters, DR 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out an employment contract) on 
the Stargen, Nichols, Largent, and Lehman matters, 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to practice law) in the Nichols 
matter, and 2-110(A)(2) (withdrawing from employment without ensuring that the 
client is not prejudiced) in the Stargen matter. 
 
In mitigation, the panel found that respondent was sincerely remorseful 
about his misconduct, that he had cooperated in the disciplinary investigation, and 
that he intended to make full restitution to his clients.  It further found that 
respondent had an alcohol and drug dependency problem but had been sober since 
1995, that he had regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and that he 
was being treated by a psychologist for depression and anxiety disorders.  The 
parties stipulated that respondent’s alcohol and drug abuse as well as his mental 
disorders had greatly contributed to his inability to competently practice law. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio with his reinstatement contingent on making full restitution 
to his clients.  Respondent agreed that this sanction was appropriate.  The board 
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews and Ralph F. Dublikar, for relator. 
 
 
4
 
John A. Casalinuovo, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent’s sincere attempts to overcome and treat the substance 
abuse addiction and mental disorders that contributed to his repeated neglect of 
client matters and misappropriation of client funds are sufficient to warrant 
indefinite suspension rather than disbarment.  See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Arnold 
(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 294, 295-296, 707 N.E.2d 1104, 1105.  Respondent is 
hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio and his 
reinstatement is conditioned on his making full restitution to the Lehmans and the 
Largents.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.