Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Nittskoff

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. Nittskoff, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5758.] 
 
 
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-5758 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. NITTSKOFF. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nittskoff,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5758.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to file tax returns for estate—Failure to return 
files upon client’s request—Mismanagement of client trust account—
Failure to cooperate with disciplinary authority—Failure to inform clients 
of lack of professional-liability insurance—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2010-2245—Submitted April 6, 2011—Decided November 10, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-089. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David Nittskoff, of South Euclid, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0025471, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1970. 
{¶ 2} In early 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, received a grievance 
alleging that Nittskoff had failed to inform his clients that he did not carry 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
malpractice insurance and had neglected a client matter, causing the client to 
incur significant tax penalties. 
{¶ 3} In December 2009, relator filed a formal complaint alleging that 
Nittskoff had committed several violations of the Ohio Code of Professional 
Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct.1   Nittskoff did not answer. 
{¶ 4} On April 30, 2010, relator filed an amended complaint; again, 
Nittskoff did not answer.  Relator filed a motion for default judgment on 
September 21, 2010. 
{¶ 5} The matter was referred by the board to a master commissioner, 
who made findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended a one-year 
suspension from the practice of law with six months stayed, but without naming 
any conditions.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the master commissioner, 
but recommended that Nittskoff be suspended from the practice of law for six 
months. 
{¶ 6} We issued an order to show cause why the recommendation of the 
board should not be adopted by the court.  Relator responded, objecting to the 
board’s recommendation and requesting this court to enter an order disbarring 
Nittskoff.  Nittskoff did not file a response. 
{¶ 7} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but 
suspend Nittskoff from the practice of law in Ohio indefinitely.  We additionally 
order that as a condition of reinstatement Nittskoff shall satisfy the civil judgment 
                                                          
 
1 Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before and 
after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which supersede 
the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Although both the former and 
current rules are cited for the same acts, the allegations comprise a single continuing ethical 
violation. Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, 
¶ 1, fn. 1. 
 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
obtained against him on behalf of the estate of Jack Gordon and shall submit 
quarterly progress reports to relator on his payment of the judgment. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 8} Nittskoff and the late Jack Gordon formed an attorney-client 
relationship beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  Nittskoff also 
represented other members of Gordon’s family.  Gordon operated a bicycle shop 
near downtown Cleveland. 
{¶ 9} Gordon died on September 27, 2005, leaving an estate and the Jack 
Gordon Revocable Trust.  Stanley P. Frankel, successor trustee of the revocable 
trust and administrator of the estate, contacted Nittskoff after Gordon’s death.  
Nittskoff then contacted Gordon’s heirs and attempted to determine the extent of 
the trust’s assets.  He then prepared partially completed handwritten drafts of 
probate court filings and conferred with Frankel. 
{¶ 10} In 2006 and early 2007, Frankel continued to ask Nittskoff for the 
status of Gordon’s estate.  Nittskoff informed Frankel that everything was being 
taken care of and that he would take care of any tax penalty that might be 
assessed.  Frankel terminated Nittskoff on April 2, 2007, due to poorly prepared 
probate forms, errors in draft estate-tax returns, and his failure to file estate-tax 
returns, which Frankel feared would lead to interest and penalties. 
{¶ 11} On November 5, 2007, the Internal Revenue Service informed 
Frankel that an estate-tax return had not been filed and that the Jack Gordon estate 
owed a penalty of $317,146.20 and interest in the amount of $134,358.26, totaling 
$451,504.46.  Frankel then repeatedly requested that Nittskoff pay both the 
penalty and interest or reimburse the estate for the entire amount.  Nittskoff never 
paid either the penalty or interest, nor did he ever respond to Frankel.  The estate 
paid the taxes, penalty, and interest. 
{¶ 12} In October 2008, Frankel filed a legal-malpractice claim against 
Nittskoff and Nittskoff’s law firm in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Pleas.  See Frankel v. Nittskoff, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-08-673876.  In April 
2009, the court entered a default judgment against Nittskoff and the firm in the 
amount of $451,504.46, and Frankel filed a judgment lien.  In March 2010, acting 
pro se, Nittskoff filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), 
but the motion was denied. 
{¶ 13} Frankel, through his attorney, also requested that Nittskoff return 
all file materials relating to the trust and the estate, but Nittskoff did not comply.  
Frankel stated in an affidavit dated September 8, 2010, that Nittskoff still had not 
returned any of the requested materials. 
{¶ 14} On March 25, 2009, relator sent Nittskoff a letter of inquiry 
regarding the grievance.  However, Nittskoff did not respond, nor did he respond 
to relator’s second inquiry. 
{¶ 15} On July 21, 2009, in response to a notice of deposition and 
subpoena duces tecum, Nittskoff appeared at relator’s office with the requested 
materials. During the deposition, Nittskoff testified that he had failed to maintain 
professional-liability insurance for himself and his firm and that he had not 
informed any of his clients of this fact. 
{¶ 16} In 2009, Nittskoff maintained an interest-bearing account at 
Charter One Bank.  On October 27, 2009, relator received a notice from the bank 
that the IOLTA account was overdrawn.  During its investigation, relator 
discovered that the certificate of authority for the Nittskoff firm had been 
cancelled by the Ohio Secretary of State in 2007 for failure to pay franchise taxes. 
{¶ 17} On November 30, 2009, relator sent a letter of inquiry regarding 
the IOLTA overdraft via certified mail; Nittskoff did not respond.  Nor did 
Nittskoff send a response to relator’s second letter of inquiry sent on December 
31, 2009. 
{¶ 18} On December 4, 2009, a probable-cause panel certified the matter 
to the board.  The first formal complaint was filed on December 7, 2009, asserting 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
two counts: (1) that Nittskoff failed to file the requisite tax returns for the Jack 
Gordon estate, did not reimburse the estate for the tax penalties assessed against 
it, and failed to pay the judgment obtained against him by the successor trustee 
and the estate administrator and (2) that he failed to inform any of his clients, 
including Frankel, that neither he nor the Nittskoff firm maintained professional-
liability insurance. 
{¶ 19} Nittskoff never filed his answer.  On April 30, 2010, relator filed 
an amended complaint to add a third count, alleging that Nittskoff failed to 
maintain sufficient funds in his IOLTA account and failed to respond to relator’s 
letters of inquiry. Again, Nittskoff did not file an answer. 
{¶ 20} On September 21, 2010, relator filed a motion for default.  The 
master commissioner recommended a sanction of a one-year suspension from the 
practice of law with six months suspended.  The board adopted the findings of 
fact and conclusions of law of the master commissioner and granted the motion 
for default.  However, the board rejected relator’s recommendation that Nittskoff 
be disbarred and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for 
six months. 
Count One 
{¶ 21} With respect to count one, which pertains to Nittskoff’s conduct 
regarding the Gordon estate and trust matters, the board found by clear and 
convincing evidence that he had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); DR 1-
102(A)(6) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on 
the lawyer’s fitness to practice law); DR 6-101(A)(1) (handling a legal matter that 
he is not competent to handle); 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to 
him); Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (failing to provide competent legal representation to a 
client); 1.3 (failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness); 1.4(a)(2) 
(failing to reasonably consult with a client about the means for achieving the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
client’s objectives); 1.4(a)(3) (failing to keep the client reasonably informed); 
1.4(a)(4) (failing to respond to requests for information from the client); and 
1.4(b) (failing to explain a matter so as to permit the client to make informed 
decisions). 
Count Two 
{¶ 22} On count two, the board further found by clear and convincing 
evidence that Nittskoff’s failure to inform his clients that he did not maintain 
professional-liability insurance constituted a violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) and 1-
104(A) (failing to inform a client that the lawyer does not maintain professional-
liability insurance). 
Count Three 
{¶ 23} On the third and final count of the amended complaint, the board 
found that Nittskoff’s misconduct in allowing an overdraft of his IOLTA account 
and his failure to respond to relator’s two letters of inquiry violated Prof.Cond.R. 
8.1(b) (failing to respond to a request for information from a disciplinary 
authority in connection with a disciplinary matter) and 8.4(h). 
Sanction 
{¶ 24} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
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 making a final 
determination on sanctions, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and 
mitigating factors listed in Section 10(B) 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. 
{¶ 25} The board found that Nittskoff’s lack of cooperation in the 
disciplinary process, including his failure to answer the complaint and the 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
amended complaint, was an aggravating factor.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(e).  The board also found an aggravating factor in the vulnerability of 
and resulting harm to the victims of Nittskoff’s misconduct.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h). 
{¶ 26} As mitigating factors, the board found that Nittskoff had no prior 
disciplinary record and no dishonest or selfish motive.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a) and (b).  The board also found that Nittskoff’s compliance with the 
subpoena duces tecum demonstrated a full and free disclosure to the board and a 
cooperative attitude toward the proceedings.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d).  
However, we believe that any mitigating effect of Nittskoff’s compelled 
appearance at the deposition is outweighed by his failure to respond to relator’s 
correspondence and his failure to file an answer or otherwise appear in this action.  
The board found the imposition of other penalties or sanctions, namely the civil 
judgment against Nittskoff, to be mitigating under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f). 
{¶ 27} Relator filed objections to the board’s report, arguing that 
Nittskoff’s conduct warrants disbarment rather than a six-month suspension as 
recommended by the board.  Relator argues that the board erroneously relied on 
Nittskoff’s “entirely unverified” deposition testimony.  Had Nittskoff participated 
in the formal disciplinary process as required, relator argues, relator would have 
been able to test Nittskoff’s statements through regular discovery. 
{¶ 28} Relator further argues that the board relied on claims by Nittskoff 
that are entirely irrelevant to the disciplinary case and the determination of the 
appropriate sanction.  For example, the board cited Nittskoff’s testimony that he 
did not ask the IRS for an extension to file tax returns because he did not believe 
that the estate was large enough to pay taxes.  Relator argues that while that 
statement may be an accurate reflection of Nittskoff’s reasoning, it is not relevant 
or mitigating.  As another example, relator cites the board’s reliance on 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
Nittskoff’s “irrelevant and hearsay” deposition testimony to conclude that the 
value of Gordon’s bicycle shop was zero. 
{¶ 29} Relator argues that the only relevant information the board needed 
in order to determine the appropriate sanction in the Gordon matter is that (1) 
Nittskoff agreed to provide legal representation to the Jack Gordon estate and to 
Frankel and (2) Nittskoff did not file certain estate-tax returns and failed to ask for 
an extension of time to file.  Relator argues that “[t]his Court should reject the 
board’s recommendation and enter a sanction that is consistent with the facts of 
this case and prior decisions.” 
{¶ 30} We repeatedly have recognized that neglect of an entrusted legal 
matter, coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary 
investigation, warrants an indefinite suspension.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Meade, 127 Ohio St.3d 393, 2010-Ohio-6209, 939 N.E.2d 1250, ¶ 20.  Meade 
involved an attorney who failed to cooperate in multiple disciplinary 
investigations, failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client resulting in the dismissal of an appeal of a deportation order, 
and failed to deliver the client’s file to her new counsel.  We ordered an indefinite 
suspension.  See also Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269, 2010-
Ohio-136, 921 N.E.2d, 636, ¶ 10 (indefinite suspension imposed on attorney who 
failed to return unearned fees and failed to cooperate with disciplinary 
authorities); Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 337, 2009-Ohio-764, 
904 N.E.2d 517 (indefinite suspension appropriate for attorney who neglected 
several of his clients, failed to refund retainers for work he did not perform, and 
failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation); Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891 (attorney 
indefinitely suspended for neglecting clients’ cases, mismanaging his client trust 
account, and failing to cooperate throughout the disciplinary process); Columbus 
Bar Assn. v. Harris, 108 Ohio St.3d 543, 2006-Ohio-1715, 844 N.E.2d 1202 
January Term, 2011 
9 
 
(indefinite suspension imposed on attorney who neglected clients’ cases, failed to 
keep clients apprised of  the status of their cases, allowed her malpractice 
insurance to lapse, and did not cooperate with the disciplinary process). 
{¶ 31} The facts of this case are closer to the facts in the foregoing 
decisions than to those in which less severe sanctions were imposed.  Here, the 
evidence demonstrates clearly that Nittskoff neglected his client by failing to 
properly file estate-tax returns or request an extension, thereby causing the client 
to incur a significant tax penalty, totaling $451,504.46.  Moreover, Nittskoff 
neglected to maintain professional-liability insurance and did not inform his 
clients of that fact.  Nittskoff also neglected to maintain adequate records of his 
IOLTA account, which ultimately resulted in an overdraft.  Finally, when relator 
attempted to investigate the IOLTA matter, Nittskoff failed to cooperate. 
{¶ 32} In accordance with our previous decisions involving neglect of 
entrusted legal matters combined with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing 
disciplinary investigation, we hereby indefinitely suspend Nittskoff from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  We further order that as a condition of reinstatement that 
Nittskoff shall satisfy the civil judgment obtained against him on behalf of the 
estate of Jack Gordon and shall also submit quarterly progress reports to relator 
on his payment of the judgment. 
{¶ 33} Costs are taxed to Nittskoff. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, 
CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 34} I agree with the majority that attorney Nittskoff violated several 
provisions of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
Professional Conduct and that he should be sanctioned.  I dissent because I 
believe that an indefinite suspension is excessive given the misconduct that 
Nittskoff committed. 
{¶ 35} At its core, this case is a garden-variety malpractice case.  Based 
merely on the malpractice, it is unlikely that this court would have indefinitely 
suspended Nittskoff from the practice of law.  But this case also includes repeated 
failures to respond and cooperate in the disciplinary process.  In my opinion, that 
aggravating factor does not outweigh the underlying malpractice case and the 
mitigating factors. 
{¶ 36} The majority opinion cites five prior disciplinary cases to justify its 
imposition of an indefinite suspension.  In four of those cases, the attorney who 
was indefinitely suspended committed violations involving multiple clients.  This 
case does not involve multiple clients; only one client was neglected, though the 
neglect was substantial and the effect was extremely expensive for the client.  The 
fourth case cited by the majority opinion involved more aggravating factors that 
this case, including a selfish motive, which is lacking in this case. 
{¶ 37} Viewing the case as a whole and after considering all the 
aggravating and mitigating factors, I conclude that the violations do not rise to the 
level necessary to impose an indefinite suspension.  I would impose the sanction 
recommended by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and 
suspend Nittskoff from the practice of law for six months. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, Chief 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________