Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wolosin

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
Cincinnati Bar Association v. Wolosin                                            
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wolosin (1995),     Ohio                        
St.3d    .]                                                                      
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Two-year suspension stayed                     
     with monitored probation -- Neglecting five cases of                        
     clients seeking relief in bankruptcy -- Meeting with                        
     clients and appearing in court while under the influence                    
     of alcohol.                                                                 
     (No. 94-1375 -- Submitted January 10, 1995 -- Decided                       
March 22, 1995.)                                                                 
     On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on                        
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 93-19.                       
     Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged respondent,                    
Gary E. Wolosin of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No.                   
0008072, with two counts of misconduct involving violations of,                  
inter alia, DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal                        
matter), 7-101(A)(2) and (3) (failure to carry out contract for                  
professional services and causing damage or prejudice to                         
client), and 1-102(A)(5) and (6) (conduct prejudicial to the                     
administration of justice and that adversely reflects on                         
fitness to practice law).  Respndent timely answered, admitting                  
in part and denying in part the allegations of the complaint.                    
A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and                          
Discipline of the Supreme Court heard the matter on April 22,                    
1994.                                                                            
     Relator did not offer evidence to prove the allegations in                  
Count I, but the panel inquired about the underlying events                      
from respondent.  Respondent admitted that during the period of                  
September 1992 through December 1992, he neglected five cases                    
of clients seeking relief in bankruptcy.  He failed to appear                    
at hearings on their behalf, he failed to return their                           
telephone calls, and he failed to accept or respond                              
appropriately to notices and correspondence about their cases.                   
Respondent also met with some of these clients while under the                   
influence of alcohol.                                                            
     Respondent attributed his neglect, in part, to his                          
assumption of  a bankruptcy practice from an attorney who had                    
apparently been recently  disbarred.  Around September 1992,                     
that attorney disconnected the office telephone line, leaving                    
an enormous unpaid  bill, arranged for the removal of many                       
files from the office, and left the state. One month elapsed                     
before respondent was able, through court action, to force a                     
new telephone connection, and the interrupted service caused                     
him to miss clients' calls.  He also claims not to have                          
received notices for court appearances because  mail was being                   
forwarded somewhere else.                                                        
     Respondent attempted to salvage the bankruptcy practice,                    
notwithstanding the loss of  his telephone, reliable mail                        
service, and the files of clients, many of whom he did not                       
realize were his.  With the help of a paralegal who had worked                   
for the previous attorney, he eventually reestablished contact                   
with many of the clients and attended to their cases.                            
Respondent assured the panel that he also repaid fees received                   
from clients whose cases he neglected during the end of 1992.                    
     Another reason for respondent's neglect underlies the                       
charges in Count II.  Respondent has been diagnosed with                         
alcoholism, and in February 1993, he appeared in court several                   
times while under the influence.  He has also been diagnosed                     
with depression, and this condition caused him to become                         
overwhelmed with the volume of cases, activity, and uncertainty                  
of the bankruptcy practice he assumed in late 1992.  He                          
apparently "shut-down" during the last three months of that                      
year and is unable to recall many of the events that occurred.                   
     From this evidence, the panel determined that respondent                    
had violated the cited Disciplinary Rules.  Before recommending                  
a sanction for this misconduct, the panel considered that                        
respondent's mental illness is apparently now controlled                         
through medication, and he claims to have abstained from                         
alcohol for a year.  The panel was concerned, however, about                     
respondent's articulated belief that he is able to drink                         
alcohol socially, and his admitted susceptibility to                             
"shut-down" periods that leave him completely dysfunctional.                     
Indeed, in the only medical report in the record, respondent's                   
psychiatrist warned that he tends to rationalize his use of                      
alcohol and should continue in psychotherapy.  Respondent has                    
apparently ignored this advise, as he sees a doctor now mainly                   
to change or refill his medications.                                             
     The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from                     
the practice of law for a period of two years, but that the                      
suspension be stayed and respondent be placed on probation                       
during the two-year period, under the following conditions:                      
     1.  Respondent shall submit to monitoring by an attorney,                   
experienced in bankruptcy law,  to be appointed by the                           
Cincinnati Bar Association.  The monitoring attorney shall                       
report to the bar association every other month concerning                       
respondent's competence to maintain his law practice.                            
     2.  Respondent shall have his psychiatrist report to the                    
Cincinnati Bar Association every six months during his                           
probation period about his condition and treatment and its                       
effect on his ability to practice law.                                           
     3.  Respondent shall otherwise comply with the                              
Disciplinary Rules.                                                              
     The board adopted the panel's findings and its                              
recomendation, with conditions, including the added condition                    
that respondent shall participate in the Ohio Lawyer's                           
Assistance Program and receive alcohol-abuse counseling.                         
                                                                                 
     Rebecca K. Kaye and Thomas R. Smith, for relator.                           
     Mark R. Naegel, for respondent.                                             
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We have thoroughly reviewed the record and                     
agree with the board's findings of misconduct and its                            
recommendation.  Respondent is therefore suspended from the                      
practice of law in Ohio for two years, but the suspension is                     
stayed, and respondent is placed on probation under the                          
conditions set by the panel.  Costs taxed to respondent.                         
                                    Judgment accordingly.                        
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,                        
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.