Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gusley

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gusley, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5012.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-5012 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. GUSLEY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gusley,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5012.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to act with reasonable diligence in representing 
a client—Failure to set forth contingent-fee agreement in writing signed 
by a client—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2012-0677—Submitted May 9, 2012—Decided October 31, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-117. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Mark Rudolf Gusley of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0056243, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1991.  
On December 5, 2011, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, charged 
respondent with professional misconduct arising from his failure to enter into a 
written contingent-fee agreement with a client and his failure to register for the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
electronic-filing system of the United District Court for the Northern District of 
Ohio, which resulted in respondent’s not receiving notices of filings in the client’s 
case and missing a filing deadline. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11. 
{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Gusley stipulates to the 
facts as alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter), and 1.5(c)(1) (requiring an attorney to have 
set forth a contingent-fee agreement in a writing signed by the client).  Relator has 
agreed to the dismissal of the alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal). 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that mitigating factors include the absence of 
a prior disciplinary record, absence of a selfish motive, a timely good-faith effort 
to rectify the consequences of the misconduct by registering with the United 
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and full and free disclosure 
and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.  The parties do not 
stipulate to any aggravating factors.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c),  
and (d).  Based upon these substantial mitigating factors, the parties stipulate that 
a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for Gusley’s misconduct. 
{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety.  We agree that Gusley violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 
1.4(a)(3), and 1.5(c)(1) and that this conduct warrants a public reprimand.  
Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, and we dismiss 
the charged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c). 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
{¶ 6} Accordingly, Gusley is hereby publicly reprimanded for his 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 1.5(c)(1).  Costs are taxed to Gusley. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, 
CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would dismiss the complaint. 
__________________ 
Heather Zirke; and Walter & Haverfield, L.L.P., Darrell A. Clay, and 
Bonnie S. Finley, for relator. 
Steven G. Janik and Audrey K. Bentz, for respondent. 
______________________