Title: Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Yakubek

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Yakubek, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1570.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-1570 
TRUMBULL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. YAKUBEK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Yakubek, Slip Opinion  
No. 2015-Ohio-1570.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of 
their matters—One-year suspension, stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2014-1379—Submitted January 14, 2015—Decided April 29, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline, No. 2013-007. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Nancy Ellen Yakubek of Warren, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0023651, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1983. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} On March 11, 2013, a probable-cause panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline1 certified a complaint against 
Yakubek to the board, alleging that she had neglected a client’s bankruptcy matter 
and failed to reasonably communicate with the client.  Relator, Trumbull County 
Bar Association, twice amended its complaint to allege that Yakubek engaged in 
the same type of conduct with three additional clients. 
{¶ 3} The parties submitted joint stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors and agreed that a public reprimand is the 
appropriate sanction for Yakubek’s misconduct.  At the hearing, the panel heard 
testimony from Yakubek and Judge Pamela Rintala of the Trumbull County 
Family Court. 
{¶ 4} The panel issued a report adopting the parties’ stipulations of fact 
and misconduct.  But the panel rejected the parties’ stipulated sanction of a public 
reprimand and recommended that Yakubek be suspended for one year, all stayed 
on conditions.  The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety.  We adopt the 
board’s findings of fact and misconduct and agree that a one-year suspension, all 
stayed on conditions, is the appropriate sanction for Yakubek’s misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} At issue are four bankruptcy matters that Yakubek agreed to handle 
on behalf of separate clients—Dawn Stulgis, Jeffrey Ford, Judith Huff, and 
Rachel Goss—who retained her between January 2010 and June 2012 . 
{¶ 6} Yakubek commenced bankruptcy actions on behalf of Ford and Huff 
but failed to timely submit proof that they had completed their required financial-
management course—which resulted in the closure of Huff’s case without a 
discharge of her debts.  Yakubek also failed to take action to protect Huff after a 
foreclosure action was filed against her.  Although Yakubek failed to timely 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
respond to numerous calls from Ford and Huff, she eventually obtained final 
discharge of their bankruptcy proceedings in April 2013, and neither client 
suffered adverse financial consequences as a result of her delay. 
{¶ 7} Yakubek never filed bankruptcy petitions on behalf of Stulgis or 
Goss, nor did she return numerous calls from those clients regarding the status of 
their matters.  While Yakubek assured Stulgis that she would take care of 
complaints filed against her by her creditors, several default judgments resulted 
from Yakubek’s inaction.  And although Stulgis and Goss submitted written 
requests for the return of their paperwork and unearned fees, Yakubek did not 
comply with their requests until after they filed grievances against her. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the board found that Yakubek violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter), and 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply 
as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client) 
with respect to each of the charged counts and Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a 
lawyer to reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s 
objectives are to be accomplished) with regard to the Stulgis, Huff, and Ford 
matters.2  We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} 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 
                                                 
2 Although relator charged Yakubek with violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.16 (requiring a lawyer to 
withdraw from representation of a client if the lawyer is discharged), it offered no evidence to 
prove that charge, and therefore we dismiss it. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10 (B).3 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated and the board found as aggravating factors 
that Yakubek engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  The board also adopted the parties’ 
stipulated factors in mitigation, including the absence of a prior disciplinary 
record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, Yakubek’s effort to rectify 
the consequences of her misconduct and to reimburse her clients for unearned 
legal fees and for expenses, her full cooperation with relator’s investigation and 
her cooperative attitude towards this proceeding, and her good character and 
reputation among her peers and in the community.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a) through (e). 
{¶ 11} Yakubek testified regarding her extensive legal-aid and pro bono 
work.  In a letter, Judge Terry F. Ivanchak of the Warren Municipal Court stated 
that Yakubek represents her clients completely, professionally, and in a timely 
manner and that the clients she has represented in his courtroom have reported 
that they are satisfied with her representation.  Judge Ivanchak also praised her 
high ethical and moral standards and stated that he has never questioned her 
integrity.  Judge Pamela Rintala, a judge from the Trumbull County Family Court, 
testified regarding Yakubek’s pro bono work, described her as a good attorney, 
and indicated that she had had no complaints about her. 
{¶ 12} The parties stipulated that Yakubek’s misconduct occurred during a 
period of time when she was trying to practice law solo and full time while also 
providing nearly full-time care to her seriously ill father and sister.  The board 
noted, however, that Yakubek’s misconduct began in early January 2010 and 
continued through early 2013, but Yakubek testified that her father’s illness began 
                                                 
3 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV.  
January Term, 2015 
 
5
sometime in 2012 and that her sister’s illness began in January 2013.  Yakubek 
offered no further explanation or justification for her misconduct. 
{¶ 13} The board discounted the cases cited by the parties in support of 
their recommendation that Yakubek be publicly reprimanded because, for the 
most part, each addresses the neglect of a single client matter.  Yakubek, in 
contrast, neglected and failed to reasonably communicate with four separate 
clients, for a total of 15 violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  
Therefore, the board recommends that we impose a one-year suspension, all 
stayed on the conditions that Yakubek serve a one-year period of monitored 
probation, attend a continuing-legal-education seminar focused on law-office and 
case-file management, and commit no further misconduct. 
{¶ 14} In support of that sanction, the board cited several cases in which 
we imposed one-year stayed suspensions on attorneys who neglected a few client 
matters, failed to reasonably communicate with clients, and either failed to 
cooperate in relator’s investigation or failed to promptly deliver funds to which 
their clients were entitled.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman, 128 Ohio 
St.3d 206, 2010-Ohio-6149, 943 N.E.2d 509; Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. 
Fonda, 138 Ohio St.3d 399, 2014-Ohio-850, 7 N.E.3d 1164; and Allen Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Brown, 124 Ohio St.3d 530, 2010-Ohio-580, 925 N.E.2d 112. 
{¶ 15} We acknowledge that Yakubek has fully cooperated in the 
disciplinary process—unlike many of the respondents in the cases cited by the 
board.  We note, however, that her misconduct involved the neglect of four client 
matters and corresponding failure to communicate with those clients, and that like 
Fonda, she failed to return unearned fees to two of her clients until after they had 
filed grievances against her.  We also share the board’s concern that Yakubek’s 
misconduct predates the family problems that she testified are to blame for her 
ethical lapses.  Despite these differences, we agree that Yakubek’s misconduct is 
comparable to that of attorneys Brueggeman, Fonda, and Brown, and agree that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
the appropriate sanction for Yakubek’s misconduct is a one-year suspension from 
the practice of law, all stayed on the conditions that she serve a one-year period of 
monitored probation, attend a continuing-legal-education seminar on law-office 
and case-file management, and engage in no further misconduct. 
{¶ 16} Accordingly, Nancy Ellen Yakubek is suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for one year, all stayed on the conditions that she serve a one-year 
period of monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21), attend a 
continuing-legal-education seminar on law-office and case-file management, and 
engage in no further misconduct.  Costs are taxed to Yakubek. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
Randil J. Rudloff, for relator. 
Steven G. Janik and Audrey K. Bentz, for respondent. 
_________________________