Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Gerchak

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Gerchak, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5075.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-5075 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GERCHAK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Gerchak,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5075.] 
Attorney misconduct — Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice 
— One-year suspension, all stayed on condition. 
(No. 2011-0700 — Submitted June 21, 2011 — Decided October 5, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-069. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David John Gerchak, Attorney Registration No. 
0069060, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1998.  In August 2010, 
Disciplinary Counsel, relator, filed a complaint charging Gerchak with 
misconduct and violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct based on 
misrepresentations he made to the bankruptcy court. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} The parties filed stipulations of fact and stipulated that Gerchak 
had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation).  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline conducted a hearing to consider additional allegations of misconduct.  
The panel determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that Gerchak 
had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) (conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), but there was insufficient evidence that he had violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law).  The panel recommended that Gerchak be suspended from the 
practice of law for a period of one year with the entire year stayed, upon 
condition.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommended sanction. 
{¶ 3} On May 10, 2011, we gave Gerchak 20 days to show cause why 
we should not adopt the recommendations of the board.  He did not reply.  Based 
on the evidence before us, we adopt the board’s findings and conclusions, and we 
suspend Gerchak’s license to practice law in Ohio for a period of one year with 
the entire suspension stayed on the condition set by the panel. 
Facts 
{¶ 4} Gerchak is a sole practitioner who practices in the area of 
bankruptcy law.  On November 20, 2009, Judge Kay Woods of the United States 
Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Ohio, found Gerchak in contempt for 
failing to respond to show-cause orders in two separate cases and suspended his 
electronic-filing (“ECF”) privileges in bankruptcy court for a period of 60 days 
for purposes of filing new cases only. 
{¶ 5} On December 16, 2009, Gerchak electronically filed a bankruptcy 
petition on behalf of a client using the ECF account of attorney Jeffrey Kurz 
because Gerchak’s ECF privileges had been suspended.  Gerchak filed a 
disclosure-of-compensation form with the bankruptcy petition stating that Kurz, 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
as attorney for the debtor, had received $800 in fees from the client.  The 
following day, Gerchak filed a notice of appearance as co-counsel in the case. 
{¶ 6} Although the client had paid him the entire filing fee in advance, 
Gerchak did not pay the filing fee when he filed the petition.  Because of the ECF 
suspension, he was unable to pay the fee electronically as required.  Instead, on 
December 30, 2009, Gerchak applied to the court to pay the fee in installments.  
The application, which was electronically signed by Kurz and the client, stated 
that the debtor was unable to pay the filing fee except in installments, a statement 
that was clearly untrue, as the client had already given Gerchak the filing fee.  
Neither Kurz nor the client was aware that Gerchak was going to file the 
application. 
{¶ 7} On January 12, 2010, Judge Woods found Gerchak in contempt for 
electronically filing the bankruptcy petition during the 60-day suspension of his 
ECF privileges.  The order extended the suspension, prohibited him from filing 
any documents in bankruptcy court through March 19, 2010, and required him to 
disgorge the $800 fee paid by his client. 
{¶ 8} During a hearing before Judge Woods, Gerchak admitted that he 
had used Kurz’s ECF account to file a new case and that he had falsely stated to 
the court that the debtor was unable to pay the filing fee except in installments.  
He also admitted that he had not obtained his client’s consent to file the 
application to pay in installments. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 9} Gerchak stipulated that his actions violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c).  
The panel further found, and the board agreed, that Gerchak’s having been found 
in contempt by Judge Woods on two occasions within 60 days and his admission 
to violating Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) constituted clear and convincing evidence that 
Gerchak had also violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d).  But the panel and board 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
concluded that there was insufficient evidence of a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h) and recommended that that charge be dismissed. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the duties violated and sanctions imposed in similar 
cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 
775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In addition, we also weigh evidence of 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 (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 11} Here, the parties stipulated in mitigation that Gerchak had no prior 
disciplinary record and that he provided full and free disclosure during the 
investigation and exhibited a cooperative attitude.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) 
and (d).  In addition, the panel found that there was no dishonest or selfish motive, 
that Gerchak had a good character and reputation in the legal community, and that 
other penalties or sanctions had been imposed on him.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(b), (e), and (f). 
{¶ 12} The panel found as the only aggravating factor that Gerchak had 
committed multiple offenses.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d). 
{¶ 13} We have held that “[a] violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) will 
typically result in an actual suspension from the practice of law unless ‘significant 
mitigating factors that warrant a departure’ from that principle are present.”  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Potter, 126 Ohio St.3d 50, 2010-Ohio-2521, 930 N.E.2d 
307, ¶ 10, quoting Disciplinary Counsel v. Rohrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 65, 2009-
Ohio-5930, 919 N.E.2d 180, ¶ 45.  In this case, the panel concluded and the board 
agreed that there were sufficient mitigating factors to warrant a stayed suspension. 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
{¶ 14} First, Gerchak’s misrepresentations to the bankruptcy court were 
not done in a malicious or selfish manner.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Ricketts, 
128 Ohio St.3d 271, 2010-Ohio-6240, ¶ 41.  He intended to pay the filing fee and 
did so within a week after he filed the false application to pay in installments.  
Next, Gerchak presented evidence that he was suffering from depression at the 
time of this incident and that he had been under significant stress for many years 
as a result of a chronic genetic illness of his son.  The panel considered that 
Gerchak began treatment in the fall of 2009 with a psychiatrist for depression, 
anxiety, and an eating disorder, and had entered into a three-year contract with the 
Ohio Lawyers Assistance Programs (“OLAP”) on February 9, 2010.  The panel 
found that Gerchak’s mental state, although not a mitigating factor, had clouded 
his judgment and contributed to his making a bad decision concerning 
nonpayment of the filing fee.  But the panel concluded that this was an ethical 
lapse unlikely to recur and that an actual suspension was not necessary to protect 
the public. 
{¶ 15} Finally, the panel acknowledged that Gerchak fully cooperated in 
the disciplinary process and expressed sincere remorse for his misconduct.  
Gerchak’s client was not harmed by his misconduct, and the bankruptcy court 
imposed a sanction on Gerchak for his misconduct.  For these reasons, the panel 
concluded, and the board agreed, that the evidence established significant 
mitigating factors that warranted a stayed suspension despite the violations of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and (d). 
{¶ 16} We agree with the board that there are significant mitigating 
factors indicating that Gerchak is unlikely to commit future misconduct.  
Accordingly, we suspend Gerchak’s license to practice law in Ohio for a period of 
one year with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that he successfully 
complete his three-year OLAP contract. 
{¶ 17} Costs taxed to Gerchak. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather L. Hissom, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
John B. Juhasz, for respondent. 
______________________