Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marosan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marosan, 109 Ohio St.3d 439, 2006-Ohio-2816.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MAROSAN. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marosan,  
109 Ohio St.3d 439, 2006-Ohio-2816.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failure 
to seek lawful objectives of a client — Failure to carry out contract of 
employment — Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation — 
Failure to maintain funds of client in a separate account — Failure to 
promptly pay funds of client — Failure to notify client of insufficient 
liability insurance — Six-month suspension. 
(No. 2005-2054 — Submitted February 7, 2006 — Decided June 21, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-035. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Joseph E. Marosan of Middleburg Heights, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0025849, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1984.  His 
license to practice law in Ohio is currently under suspension.  Stark Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Marosan, 106 Ohio St.3d 430, 2005-Ohio-5412, 835 N.E.2d 718. 
{¶ 2} In August 2004, the Stark County Bar Association filed a 
disciplinary complaint charging respondent with four counts of professional 
misconduct.  The Cuyahoga County Bar Association also filed a complaint 
against respondent, and in October 2004, the matters were consolidated for 
hearing and decision.  The relator notes and respondent agrees that prior to the 
hearing in that case, the Cuyahoga County Bar Association had learned of an 
additional alleged act of misconduct and attempted to amend the pending 
complaint.  The hearing panel denied that request and proceeded with the first 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
amended complaint.  The board found that respondent had committed violations 
in all of the counts, and we adopted the board’s recommendation of a 24-month 
suspension with 18 months stayed on conditions.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Marosan, 106 Ohio St.3d 430, 2005-Ohio-5412, 835 N.E.2d 718.  We later 
revoked the stay and ordered respondent to serve the entire two-year suspension 
for failing to comply with the suspension order.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marosan, 
108 Ohio St.3d 1220, 2006-Ohio-1505, 844 N.E.2d 846. 
{¶ 3} In June 2005, in the separate case now at bar, relator, Cuyahoga 
County Bar Association, filed an amended complaint charging respondent with 
six counts of professional misconduct.  The first five counts were the same 
charges that relator had not been able to consolidate in the original Stark Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Marosan disciplinary proceeding.  The sixth count included an allegation 
that during respondent’s deposition in the first disciplinary action, he failed to 
testify truthfully.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline heard the cause and made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
recommendation, which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 4} Marjorie Chorpening retained respondent in November 2002 to 
open the probate estate of her late husband.  Respondent requested and received a 
$500 retainer – for which he performed no work and did not open the probate 
estate as promised. 
{¶ 5} The board found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(barring an attorney from neglecting an entrusted legal matter), DR 7-101(A)(1) 
(barring an attorney from intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of a 
client), and DR 7-1010(A)(2) (barring an attorney from intentionally failing to 
fulfill a contract of employment). 
Count II 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 6} Respondent failed to deposit Chorpening’s retainer into a trust 
account and keep it there until earned.  The board found that this conduct violated 
DR 9-102(A) (failure to maintain client funds in a separate account).  
Count III 
{¶ 7} Respondent failed to return Chorpening’s retainer and her 
husband’s last will and testament.  Finally, in November 2004, two years after he 
was retained, he delivered the funds and the documents to relator.  The board 
concluded that by this conduct respondent had violated DR 9-102(B)(4) (failure to 
promptly pay or deliver on demand all funds and property belonging to the client). 
Count IV 
{¶ 8} During 2002 through 2004, respondent failed to maintain 
professional liability insurance and failed to advise clients of his lack of insurance 
and to secure their written acknowledgements.  The board found that this conduct 
violated DR 1-104(A) and (B) (requiring attorneys to notify clients of insufficient 
liability insurance). 
Count V 
{¶ 9} Respondent failed to timely respond to multiple letters from the 
Cleveland Bar Association, which was investigating the complaint.  The board 
found that by this conduct respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring 
attorneys to assist in the investigation of a disciplinary matter). 
Count VI 
{¶ 10} Relator alleged in its amended complaint that respondent had 
failed to respond truthfully to investigators and to testify truthfully at his 
deposition.  Specifically, relator argued that respondent had failed to testify 
truthfully regarding his health, his visits to medical providers, and his medical 
condition’s effect on his health and his ability to work.  Relator conducted an 
extensive cross-examination of respondent, interspersed with questions and 
discussion by members of the panel.  Upon completion of the relator’s evidence, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
respondent moved to dismiss the count for insufficient evidence, and the panel 
unanimously dismissed Count VI. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  As 
aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had had three prior 
complaints against him, one of which the board had dismissed and two of which 
were then pending before this court.  Further, the board found that respondent had 
committed multiple offenses and that there was a pattern of misconduct.  
Additionally, respondent did not cooperate in the disciplinary process, and the 
board found that respondent had not been forthcoming with the panel. BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), and (e).  In mitigation, the board found that respondent 
did not act from a dishonest or selfish motive and that Chorpening ultimately 
suffered little harm beyond delay and inconvenience.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(b). 
{¶ 12} The board recommended that respondent’s license to practice law 
in Ohio be suspended for six months.  Finding that this misconduct was similar to 
misconduct pending before this court, the board also recommended that the 
suspension be served concurrently with any suspension imposed in Stark Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Marosan. 
{¶ 13} Relator objects to that recommendation, arguing that a concurrent 
suspension would not adequately punish respondent for his misconduct.  Relator 
also asks this court to revive the dismissed count.  Our disposition of this issue is 
controlled by Gov.Bar R.V(6)(H), which provides that when a unanimous panel 
finds insufficient evidence to support a count, it may dismiss the count without 
referring it to the board or this court for review.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
January Term, 2006 
5 
Dougherty, 105 Ohio St.3d 307, 2005-Ohio-1825, 825 N.E.2.d 1094, ¶ 9; 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ross, 107 Ohio St.3d 354, 2006-Ohio-5, 839 N.E.2d 918, 
¶ 17.  We do not review such dismissals.  See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Freedman, 107 Ohio St.3d 25, 2005-Ohio-5831, 836 N.E.2d 559, ¶ 3.  Count VI 
was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence, and we will not disturb that finding. 
{¶ 14} We agree that respondent has committed the misconduct described 
in Counts I through V but conclude that the sanction recommended by the board 
is inappropriate.  Respondent accepted a retainer from a client and failed to 
conduct any work on her behalf for two years.  Only after the Cuyahoga County 
Bar Association intervened did respondent return documents and funds to the 
client.  “Taking retainers and failing to carry out contracts of employment is 
tantamount to theft of the fee from the client.”  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 
102 Ohio St.3d 264, 2004-Ohio-2683, 809 N.E.2d 1113, ¶ 16. 
{¶ 15} Additionally, respondent failed to respond to numerous letters and 
requests from the relator and was not forthcoming with the hearing panel.  “As we 
have consistently held, neglect of legal matters and the failure to cooperate in the 
ensuing disciplinary investigation warrant an indefinite suspension from the 
practice of law.” Columbus Bar Assn. v. Torian, 106 Ohio St.3d 14, 2005-Ohio-
3216, 829 N.E.2d 1210, ¶ 17, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff, 104 Ohio 
St.3d 336, 2004-Ohio-6562, 819 N.E.2d 695, ¶ 16. 
{¶ 16} The board found that this misconduct was duplicative of and 
cumulative to respondent’s previous misconduct, warranting only a concurrent 
suspension.  We disagree.  Moreover, contrary to the board’s determination, we 
find that respondent acted with a dishonest or selfish motive.  When a lawyer 
accepts a retainer, deposits it in the lawyer’s personal account, and fails to 
perform any legal work on behalf of that client, a sanction for that misconduct is 
appropriate.  For purposes of determining an appropriate sanction, the conduct in 
this complaint is independent of the conduct in Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marosan. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for six months.  This suspension is to be served consecutively to the 
suspension imposed in Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marosan, 106 Ohio St.3d 430, 
2005-Ohio-5412, 835 N.E.2d 718.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent and would impose a six-month 
suspension to run concurrently with respondent’s present suspension. 
__________________ 
 
Howard Schulman, Ellen S. Mandell, and Justin Madden, for relator. 
 
Gallagher Sharp, Alan M. Petrov, and J. Colin Knisely, for respondent. 
______________________