Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Russell

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Russell, 114 Ohio St.3d 171, 2007-Ohio-3603.] 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. RUSSELL. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Russell, 114 Ohio St.3d 171, 2007-Ohio-3603.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Conduct involving fraud, 
deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation. 
(No. 2007-0318 – Submitted April 17, 2007 — Decided July 18, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-096. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, James Frederick Russell of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0041193, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1966. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends that we publicly reprimand respondent based on findings that he 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation) by notarizing the 
grantors’ signatures on two deeds without having actually witnessed the 
signatures.  On review, we find that respondent committed this violation of the 
Code of Professional Responsibility and hold that a public reprimand is 
appropriate. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Cleveland Bar Association, and respondent initially 
submitted a consent-to-discipline agreement in which respondent admitted the DR 
1-102(A)(4) violation, and they jointly recommended a public reprimand.  See 
Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  We rejected the board’s certified report accepting the 
agreement and recommending a public reprimand and remanded the cause to the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
board for further proceedings to ensure that the recommended sanction was 
consistent with precedent.  See Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Russell, 110 Ohio St.3d 
1429, 2006-Ohio-3902, 852 N.E.2d 180.  A three-member panel of the board 
thereafter heard the cause, found the DR 1-102(A)(4) violation, and recommended 
a public reprimand.  The board adopted this finding and recommendation. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} During most of his long career, respondent has practiced law on his 
own in a small neighborhood office with his wife as his secretary.  Much of his 
practice has involved commercial collection work. 
{¶ 5} Justine Balnozan worked for a Cleveland collection agency for 
which respondent provided those services, and through their frequent association, 
respondent came to know Balnozan fairly well.  In July 2001, Balnozan asked 
respondent to transfer title to two properties that she and her husband owned — 
the couple’s residence and a rental property.  The couple was having financial 
difficulty at the time and had been threatened with foreclosure on the two 
properties.  Balnozan’s in-laws had offered to provide financial assistance, and in 
exchange for their help, Balnozan and her husband had agreed to give the in-laws 
title to the two properties. 
{¶ 6} Respondent prepared the deeds, which Balnozan and her husband 
executed, and then recorded them.  Approximately six months later, Balnozan told 
respondent that her in-laws wanted to reverse the transaction, and she asked 
respondent to prepare deeds transferring the properties back to her and her 
husband.  Respondent prepared the deeds and gave them to Balnozan, instructing 
her to obtain her in-laws’ notarized signatures as grantors and to return the deeds 
for recording. 
{¶ 7} Balnozan returned the deeds, purportedly signed by her in-laws, 
but without the required notarizations.  Balnozan told respondent that her in-laws 
were ill and physically unable to appear before a notary, and she asked him to 
January Term, 2007 
3 
perform the notary functions.  Because he appreciated Balnozan’s employer’s 
business and trusted Balnozan, respondent invalidly notarized the signatures on 
the deeds transferring the residence and rental property back to Balnozan and her 
husband. 
{¶ 8} Respondent freely admitted that he exercised poor professional 
judgment by acting as notary for the second set of Balnozan deeds.  So when 
Balnozan’s mother-in-law disputed the validity of her and her husband’s 
signatures on those deeds and her lawyers contacted respondent about resolving 
the dispute, respondent attempted to discuss the situation with Balnozan.  
Balnozan never responded to his inquiries.  Eventually, the mother-in-law 
apparently retrieved title to the pertinent properties from her son and Balnozan, 
but she had to legally intervene in their divorce proceeding and incur legal 
expense to do so. 
{¶ 9} Respondent admitted having falsely attested to the authenticity of 
two deeds in violation of the notary jurat.  We therefore find respondent in 
violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dougherty, 105 Ohio St.3d 307, 2005-
Ohio-1825, 825 N.E.2d 1094, we publicly reprimanded a lawyer for notarizing a 
liquor license application without witnessing the applicant signing the document, 
and the signature turned out to be a forgery.  We chastised the lawyer for ignoring 
the duties of a notary public to ensure the authenticity of official documents and 
found the lawyer in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).  The lawyer did not, however, 
forge the signature or know of the forgery, nor had the lawyer engaged in a 
deceitful course of conduct beyond failing to witness signatures as required.  For 
that reason and because the lawyer had no prior disciplinary record, had showed 
contrition, had cooperated in the disciplinary process, and had established good 
character and reputation apart from the wrongdoing, we did not order the actual 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
suspension usually warranted for a lawyer’s dishonesty under Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237, syllabus.  Id. 
at ¶ 15. 
{¶ 11} Respondent committed the same infraction as did the lawyer in 
Dougherty.  Moreover, as established at the panel hearing, respondent’s case 
presents the same mitigating factors that the Dougherty case presented, as well as 
additional ones.  Respondent has no prior disciplinary record in his 40-plus year 
career, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), and he assured the panel that he would not 
engage in misconduct again.  In addition to charging Balnozan nothing for his 
services, respondent voluntarily paid the legal expenses incurred by her in-laws to 
regain title to the two properties, and he has been cooperative and contrite 
throughout the disciplinary process.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c) and (d).  
Respondent has further established his good character and reputation apart from 
this single lapse of judgment.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e). 
{¶ 12} We therefore accept the recommended sanction.  Respondent is 
hereby publicly reprimanded for violating DR 1-102(A)(4).  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Willacy, LoPresti & Marcovy, Timothy A. Marcovy, and Thomas P. 
Marotta, for relator. 
 
Gold & Pyle, L.P.A., and Gerald S. Gold, for respondent. 
______________________