Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Fink

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Fink, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-6342.] 
 
 
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-6342 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. FINK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. Fink, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-6342.] 
Attorneys at law—Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation—Engaging 
in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2010-2140—Submitted February 2, 2011—Decided December 14, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-011. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Eric R. Fink of Kent, Ohio, Attorney Registration No.  
0071059, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1999.  In February 2010, 
relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a complaint alleging that Fink had failed to 
cooperate in a disciplinary investigation and therefore had engaged in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice. 
{¶ 2} The parties have submitted stipulations of fact and misconduct, and 
a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline conducted a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
hearing to determine the appropriate sanction for Fink’s misconduct.  The board 
has accepted the parties’ agreed stipulations and the panel’s recommendation that 
we publicly reprimand Fink for his conduct.  We adopt the board’s findings of 
fact and misconduct and hereby publicly reprimand Fink for failing to respond to 
the disciplinary investigation initiated by relator. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The stipulated facts of this case and Fink’s hearing testimony 
demonstrate that in May 2009, a husband and wife who were former clients of 
Fink filed a grievance against him.  Despite having received letters of inquiry 
from relator regarding the grievance, Fink failed to respond to the allegations 
against him.  Fink also failed to comply with two subpoenas duces tecum ordering 
him to appear and be deposed—one that had been served on his legal assistant and 
another that had been personally served on him. 
{¶ 4} Based upon information relator obtained through sources other 
than Fink, the underlying grievance against him was dismissed.  After relator filed 
its complaint charging Fink with violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of 
justice) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a 
disciplinary investigation), Fink contacted relator.  Fink later filed an answer, sent 
a letter to relator outlining the facts of the complaint, and met with representatives 
of relator’s grievance committee to answer their questions. 
{¶ 5} At the hearing, Fink admitted that he had received, but did not 
respond to, relator’s inquiries.  He testified that he did not recall opening the 
certified mail and did not appreciate the gravity of the situation.  When another 
local attorney informed him of its seriousness and advised him to take immediate 
action, he did.  Fink stated that he now realizes that relator’s investigation was of 
the highest importance and that it was necessary to respond immediately.  He 
repeatedly stated that he had no excuse for his failure to cooperate in the 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
investigation and that his failure to respond to the subpoenas was a “terrible 
mistake.” 
{¶ 6} The parties have stipulated, and the panel and board have found, 
that Fink’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  We 
accept these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} 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, 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. 
{¶ 8} At the panel hearing, Fink testified that in an effort to prevent 
similar problems in the future, he now reads all his correspondence and has taken 
an online course on how to manage a solo law practice.  He denies having any 
mental-health or substance-abuse issues, and he meets with a mentor from the 
Akron Bar Association Lawyers Assistance Committee to discuss practice issues. 
{¶ 9} Of the mitigating factors set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2), 
the board found the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a 
dishonest or selfish motive, Fink’s eventual cooperation with relator’s 
investigation, and evidence of his good character as demonstrated by the letters of 
two attorneys, one of whom serves as a mediator for the Portage County Court of 
Common Pleas, and two clients, one of whom has been a personal friend of Fink 
for 18 years.  See BCGD Proc. Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e).  The board also 
found that Fink’s conduct did not cause any harm or monetary loss to his clients, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
that he suffers from no mental problems or alcohol or drug abuse, and that he 
acknowledges his rule violations and the necessity of responding to disciplinary 
investigations in the future.  The board did not find any aggravating factors. 
{¶ 10} We have previously imposed public reprimands in other cases 
involving similar conduct.  See, e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v. Deffet, 98 Ohio St.3d 
384, 2003-Ohio-1090, 785 N.E.2d 746, ¶ 5-6 (publicly reprimanding attorney for 
professional misconduct, including neglecting an entrusted legal matter, providing 
legal advice to an unrepresented opposing party, initially failing to cooperate with 
the disciplinary investigation, and failing to properly register as an attorney with 
the Supreme Court); Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Allanson (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 228, 
229, 648 N.E.2d 1340 (publicly reprimanding attorney for failing to cooperate in 
a disciplinary investigation and failing to comply with attorney-registration 
requirements for the 1989/1991 and 1991/1993 biennial periods). 
{¶ 11} Timely response to disciplinary investigations is necessary to 
preserve the integrity of, and public confidence in, the legal profession.  We do 
not condone Fink’s decision to turn a blind eye to certified letters seeking his 
response to a client grievance and to subpoenas ordering him to appear and be 
deposed.  However, in light of the remaining mitigating factors found by the 
board and hereby adopted by this court, and the remedial actions undertaken by 
Fink to ensure his future compliance, we agree that a public reprimand is an 
appropriate sanction for Fink’s misconduct. 
{¶ 12} Therefore, we hereby publicly reprimand Eric R. Fink for his 
failure to respond to a disciplinary investigation initiated by the certified 
grievance committee of the Akron Bar Association.  Costs are taxed to Fink. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
John F. Herman Co., L.P.A., and John Herman; and Corizin, Sanislo & 
Ufholz, L.L.C., and Kevin R. Sanislo, for relator. 
Eric R. Fink, pro se. 
______________________