Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Cicirella

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Cicirella, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4300.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-4300 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. CICIRELLA. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Cicirella,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4300.] 
Attorney misconduct—Practicing law while license is indefinitely suspended—
Permanent disbarment. 
(No. 2012-0315—Submitted April 24, 2012—Decided September 25, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-080. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Leonette F. Cicirella of Bedford, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0042219, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1989.  In 
September 1999, we suspended her license for two years with one year of the 
suspension stayed on conditions and ordered her to make restitution of $1,000 
based on findings that she had handled a client’s legal matter without adequate 
preparation, neglected an entrusted legal matter, and failed to cooperate in the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
ensuing disciplinary proceeding.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cicirella, 86 Ohio St.3d 
544, 545, 715 N.E.2d 1131 (1999).  Seven months later, we held her in contempt 
for failing to surrender her certificate of admission and attorney-registration card 
and for failing to file a timely affidavit of compliance with our suspension order.  
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cicirella, 88 Ohio St.3d 1463, 726 N.E.2d 1001 (2000). 
{¶ 2} We indefinitely suspended Cicirella from the practice of law in 
January 2002 upon finding that she had neglected an entrusted legal matter; had 
failed to both maintain complete records of client funds coming into her 
possession and render appropriate accounts thereof; had failed to promptly deliver 
funds or property to which her client was entitled; had engaged in dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice, and conduct adversely reflecting on her fitness to practice law; and had 
failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation.  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Cicirella, 94 Ohio St.3d 224, 225, 761 N.E.2d 1046 (2002).  And on 
December 2, 2005, we imposed upon her an attorney-registration suspension.  In 
re Attorney Registration Suspension of Cicirella, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-
Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671. 
{¶ 3} On August 15, 2011, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar 
Association, filed a complaint alleging that Cicirella had violated numerous 
Disciplinary Rules and Rules of Professional Conduct by practicing law while her 
license was under suspension and then failing to respond to relator’s investigation 
of her client’s grievance.1  Although the complaint was served by certified mail at 
an address provided by Cicirella, she failed to file an answer.  Therefore, relator 
moved for an entry of default. 
                                                 
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.  
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
{¶ 4} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline granted relator’s motion for default.  Finding by 
clear and convincing evidence that Cicirella had committed most of the charged 
misconduct, the master commissioner recommended that she be permanently 
disbarred.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact and 
misconduct as well as his recommended sanction of disbarment.  We, in turn, 
adopt the board’s report and permanently disbar Cicirella. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} The board found that although respondent’s license to practice law 
in Ohio has been continuously suspended since September 8, 1999, Cicirella was 
retained by and drafted living trusts for Helen Hydash and her son, Gary, in 2005.  
Cicirella never advised Hydash that she had been suspended from the practice of 
law.  In June 2010, following Gary’s death, Hydash retained Cicirella to perform 
legal services, including the preparation of documents and other work necessary 
to change the ownership and beneficiary designations on her late son’s investment 
accounts and to transfer the title of his vehicle. 
{¶ 6} Cicirella received a $250 retainer but did not return Hydash’s calls 
or complete her legal work.  With the assistance of a family member, Hydash 
completed the tasks herself, but Cicirella did not refund Hydash’s retainer or 
return her original documents. 
{¶ 7} Hydash filed a grievance against Cicirella on October 19, 2010, 
and Cicirella spoke with relator’s assistant counsel in January 2011.  Cicirella 
acknowledged receiving a letter of inquiry and later left a voice-mail message 
advising relator that she would attempt to submit a response by January 24, 2011.  
Despite relator’s efforts to communicate with Cicirella by telephone, as well as by 
regular and certified mail, Cicirella never submitted a response. 
{¶ 8} Based upon these facts, the board found that Cicirella’s conduct in 
2005 violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and 3-101(B) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation in that jurisdiction).  
The board found that Cicirella’s conduct in 2010 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), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable 
with reasonable requests for information from the client), 1.15(d) (requiring a 
lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the client is entitled to 
receive), 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in 
violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction), 8.1(b) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from failing to respond to a disciplinary investigation), 
8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness 
to practice law) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a 
disciplinary investigation).  We concur. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} In imposing a sanction for attorney misconduct, we consider the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  See Stark Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, 
¶ 16.   
{¶ 10} The record does not contain evidence of any mitigating factors in 
this case.  Aggravating factors, however, include Cicirella’s prior disciplinary 
offenses, her dishonest or selfish motive, her multiple offenses, her failure to 
cooperate in the disciplinary process, her refusal to acknowledge the wrongful 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
nature of her conduct, and the harm she caused a vulnerable client.  Furthermore, 
she has failed to make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), 
(g), (h), and (i). 
{¶ 11} Relator recommended that Cicirella be permanently disbarred from 
the practice of law in Ohio and that she be ordered to pay restitution and return 
Hydash’s file.  The board agreed, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Frazier, 110 
Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-4481, 853 N.E.2d 295, ¶ 54, and Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Sabroff, 123 Ohio St.3d 182, 2009-Ohio-4205, 915 N.E.2d 307, ¶ 21, 
for the proposition that disbarment is the presumptive sanction for continuing to 
practice law while under suspension. 
{¶ 12} We find that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Cicirella’s 
misconduct because she not only continued to practice law while under 
suspension, but also took her client’s money, failed to carry out the contract of 
employment, failed to return her client’s money or records, and failed to 
cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation. 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, Leonette F. Cicirella is disbarred in Ohio, and she is 
further ordered to make restitution of $250 to Helen Hydash and to return 
Hydash’s complete file within 30 days of the date of this order.  Costs are taxed to 
Cicirella. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan, and Aronoff, L.L.P., David W. Mellott, and 
Joseph N. Gross, for relator. 
______________________