Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Simakis

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Simakis, 86 Ohio St.3d 545, 1999-Ohio-120.] 
 
 
 
 
 
Cleveland Bar Association v. Simakis. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Simakis (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 545.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with sanction to 
commence after conclusion of current suspension — Neglecting an entrusted 
legal matter — Intentionally failing to carry out contract of employment for 
professional services. 
(No. 99-404 — Submitted May 18, 1999 — Decided September 8, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-18. 
 
On June 8, 1998, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a six-count 
amended complaint charging respondent, George K. Simakis of Cleveland, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0029084, with violating several Disciplinary Rules.  
After respondent answered, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
As to Count One, the panel found that in 1992 after a tenants’ group retained 
respondent to conduct an investigation, he took no action for nearly a year.  The 
tenants’ group discharged respondent and requested that its $500 retainer be 
returned, but respondent neither replied nor refunded the retainer.  The tenants 
filed suit and obtained a judgment against respondent for the retainer.  After this 
disciplinary action was commenced, they received payment.  Respondent said that 
the delay was due in part to his health problems and a flood in his basement office.  
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(neglecting an entrusted legal matter) and 7-101(A)(2) (intentionally failing to 
carry out a contract of employment for professional services). 
 
Counts Two, Four, and Six were dismissed. 
 
In considering Count Three, the panel found that Mike Neris retained 
 
2 
respondent to bring a forcible entry and detainer action against a tenant and to 
recover past due rent.  Respondent filed the actions and obtained an order for 
restitution at the eviction hearing.  However, respondent was delayed in attending 
the subsequent hearing on damages because he was appearing in another 
courtroom.  At the damages hearing, the court granted a judgment of $1,350 in 
favor of Neris before respondent arrived.  Although Neris claimed that respondent 
did nothing to obtain the judgment, the court ordered the money paid to 
respondent, who applied the funds to his fees in the case and other bills that Neris 
owed.  The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct with respect to the Neris 
matter violated DR 6-101(A)(3). 
 
As to Count Five, the panel found that Richard Musson paid a paralegal in 
respondent’s office $500 to initiate probate proceedings with respect to his 
mother’s estate.  Respondent gave the work to a member of his office staff, but 
nothing was done.  Musson was unable to contact respondent for four months and 
finally fired him and requested that the retainer be repaid.  Respondent did not 
refund the retainer until the disciplinary investigation began.  The panel concluded 
that respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2). 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law for six months.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel.  It noted that on July 2, 1998, we suspended 
respondent from the practice of law for failure to meet his Continuing Legal 
Education requirements.  In re Report of the Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn. 
(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 1456, 1458, 696 N.E.2d 215, 217, and that suspension 
remains in effect.  The board recommended that respondent’s six-month 
suspension commence at the conclusion of his CLE suspension. 
__________________ 
 
Daniel L. Brockett and Rebecca A. Wistner, for relator. 
 
3 
 
John Michael Drain, Jr., for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 
six months, and that suspension shall commence after the termination of 
respondent’s current suspension for failure to meet his CLE requirements.  Any 
application for reinstatement from this suspension must be accompanied by proof 
of the reinstatement from his CLE suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.