Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Petrancek

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. PETRANCEK. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Petrancek (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct – Permanent disbarment — Neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter — Failing to refund promptly any part of fee paid in 
advance that has not been earned — Engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law. 
(No. 98-759 — Submitted June 10, 1998  — Decided December 2, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-82. 
 
In May 1996, William Nemeth retained respondent, Frank W. Petrancek of 
Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0029187, and paid him a retainer of 
$500 to handle the estate of Nemeth’s deceased father.  At the time, Nemeth gave 
respondent his father’s will, insurance certificates, receipts, and other documents 
pertaining to the estate.  Between May and October 1996, Nemeth telephoned 
respondent’s office every two weeks, but respondent did not return his calls. 
 
On October 2, 1996, we indefinitely suspended respondent from the practice 
of law in Ohio.  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Petrancek (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 571, 
669 N.E.2d 828.  When Nemeth discovered that respondent had been suspended, 
he contacted respondent’s office in an attempt to retrieve his father’s records and 
obtain a refund of the $500.  Respondent, who had not opened an estate for 
Nemeth’s father, returned the documents, but refused to return the money, 
claiming that he had done sufficient work to earn the retainer. 
 
On October 13, 1997, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging that respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (an 
 
2
attorney shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him) and 2-110(A)(3) (a 
lawyer who withdraws from employment shall refund promptly any part of a fee 
paid in advance that has not been earned).  The complaint also alleged that, 
although on December 2, 1996 respondent filed a purported compliance, he did 
not fully comply with the court’s order of October 2, 1996, which required, inter 
alia, that he pay the costs of the October 2, 1996 proceeding in the amount of 
$1,948.31.  The relator charged that this failure to comply violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), (5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice), and (6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon his fitness to 
practice law).  The complaint was served upon respondent by certified mail.  
When respondent failed to file an answer or otherwise plead, relator filed a motion 
for default judgment. 
 
Based on the complaint, the motion, and the affidavits attached to the 
motion, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of 
the Supreme Court (“board”) found the facts as alleged and concluded that 
respondent had violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged.  The panel 
recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  The 
board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the panel but, in light 
of the entire record,  recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law. 
__________________ 
 
Lenore Kleinman and Howard A. Schulman, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  On 
occasions where there has been prior discipline, disbarment is appropriate when 
 
3
the lawyer knowingly violates the terms of the prior disciplinary order and that 
violation causes actual or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, 
or the profession.  We adopt the panel’s recommendation.  Respondent is hereby 
disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.