Title: Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Parobek

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. PAROBEK. 
[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Parobek (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Failing to promptly pay or 
deliver to client as requested by client funds, securities, or other property in 
lawyer’s possession which client is entitled to receive. 
(No. 98-829 — Submitted June 10, 1998  — Decided September 30, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-98. 
 
Respondent, James S. Parobek of Lorain, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0030742, represented Brad Cupek on a charge of driving while intoxicated and 
was not paid his fee.  Several years later, respondent represented Brad’s mother, 
Jane Cupek, executor of the estate of Ruth Eddy.  In May 1996, Jane went to 
respondent’s office to close the estate.  Respondent, who had taken no steps to 
collect the fee he was owed by Brad Cupek because he believed that Brad had left 
town, told Jane that in the estate were three shares of Ford Motor Company stock.  
Respondent told her that the stock was listed  in the names of the decedent and 
Brad Cupek and that he intended to hold the shares until Brad came to 
respondent’s office to discuss the fee he owed in the DWI case.  Jane wanted to 
take the shares, and respondent gave them to her.  However, when he gave her a 
check for the estate proceeds, he deducted $550, the amount which he believed 
that he was owed by Brad.  Respondent further said that if he was in error, he 
would immediately make an adjustment. 
 
Jane reported respondent’s actions to the relator, Lorain County Bar 
Association.  Relator contacted respondent about the Cupek grievance in late June 
1996, and respondent replied in late August 1996 with a letter explaining the 
matter. 
 
2
 
On December 9, 1996, relator filed a complaint charging that respondent’s 
conduct violated DR 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly pay or deliver to the 
client as requested by a client the funds, securities, or other properties in the 
possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive).  Respondent filed 
an answer and at approximately the same time returned the $550 to Jane.  The 
matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board’), which concluded that respondent had 
violated the Disciplinary Rule as charged.  After receiving testimony that 
respondent had not been charged with any other disciplinary violation in forty-five 
years of practice, had an outstanding reputation for integrity, honesty, and 
competence, and had a long and distinguished career of public service in Lorain 
County, the panel recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand.  The 
board adopted the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Stephen P. Bond, for relator. 
 
Craig Wright, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.