Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Mariotti

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. Mariotti, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-5191.] 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-5191 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. MARIOTTI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Mariotti, Slip Opinion No. 
2019-Ohio-5191.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Conditionally stayed one-year suspension. 
(No. 2018-1579—Submitted September 11, 2019—Decided December 18, 2019.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2018-043. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Mark Mariotti, of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0067608, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997.  
Mariotti’s license to practice law was suspended from December 5, 2003, through 
March 18, 2004, for his failure to comply with continuing-legal-education (“CLE”) 
requirements for the 2001-2002 reporting period.  In re Continuing Legal Edn. 
Suspension of Mariotti, 100 Ohio St.3d 1516, 2003-Ohio-6494, 800 N.E.2d 34; In 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
re Reinstatement of Mariotti, 101 Ohio St.3d 1479, 2004-Ohio-1240, 805 N.E.2d 
102.  It was suspended again from December 2, 2005, through January 10, 2006, 
for his failure to register for the 2005-2007 attorney-registration biennium.  In re 
Attorney Registration Suspension of Mariotti, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-
6408, 838 N.E.2d 671; In re Reinstatement of Mariotti, 108 Ohio St.3d 1428, 2006-
Ohio-378, 841 N.E.2d 790. 
{¶ 2} In a formal complaint certified to the Board of Professional Conduct 
on August 31, 2018, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, charged 
Mariotti with multiple ethical violations arising from his representation of clients 
in two separate cases—including the neglect of one client’s legal matter, failure to 
limit the scope of the other client’s representation, failure to reasonably 
communicate with either client, and failure to deposit an unearned fee into his client 
trust account—and his failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation. 
{¶ 3} Mariotti failed to timely answer relator’s complaint.  His default was 
certified to this court, and on December 3, 2018, we imposed an interim default 
suspension in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(14)(B)(1).  Cleveland Metro. Bar 
Assn. v. Mariotti, 154 Ohio St.3d 1439, 2018-Ohio-4770, 112 N.E.3d 924.  Three 
days later, Mariotti filed a motion for leave to answer and for termination of the 
interim default suspension.  We granted Mariotti’s motion and remanded the matter 
to the board for further proceedings.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Mariotti, 154 
Ohio St.3d 1473, 2019-Ohio-118, 114 N.E.3d 1201.  We reinstated Mariotti to the 
practice of law on February 19, 2019—after he filed an answer to relator’s 
complaint.  See 156 Ohio St.3d 1238, 2019-Ohio-579, 125 N.E.3d 965. 
{¶ 4} On remand, the parties entered into stipulations of fact and 
misconduct.  A panel of the board conducted a hearing and issued a report finding 
that Mariotti committed all but two of the alleged rule violations and recommending 
that he be suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully stayed on 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
conditions.  The board adopted the panel’s report and recommendation, and no 
objections have been filed. 
{¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and agree that a one-
year suspension, fully stayed on the recommended conditions, is the appropriate 
sanction in this case. 
Misconduct 
Count I: The Borisenko Case 
{¶ 6} In early December 2016, Mariotti verbally agreed to assist Sergey 
Borisenko in a commercial-eviction action filed against Borisenko in the Parma 
Municipal Court.  But there was no clear agreement between Mariotti and 
Borisenko regarding the scope of the representation or Mariotti’s compensation, 
and Mariotti did not inform Borisenko that he did not carry professional-liability 
insurance. 
{¶ 7} On December 30, the plaintiff in the eviction action filed a motion for 
default judgment against Borisenko, which was scheduled to be heard on January 
31, 2017.  Borisenko sent portions of the motion to Mariotti by text, but Mariotti 
did not enter an appearance in the case, file an answer or other responsive pleading, 
or appear at the hearing.  In response to Borisenko’s repeated text messages asking 
whether they had missed a court date, Mariotti responded, “No.  You didn’t need 
to be there.  Everything is fine.” 
{¶ 8} On February 1, Mariotti filed an answer on Borisenko’s behalf.  That 
day, the trial court journalized an entry stating that it had entered a $14,000 default 
judgment against Borisenko on January 31 and that that judgment was not affected 
by the late-filed answer.  When Borisenko confronted Mariotti by text message 
about the default judgment, Mariotti responded: “There’s more than what the 
docket states.  The case is still going on and I have been negotiating with [the 
plaintiff’s] attorney to settle the money and car issues.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 9} Mariotti was ultimately unable to resolve those issues through 
negotiation, so he filed a motion for relief from judgment.  The court denied the 
motion, and Mariotti failed to inform Borisenko of his right to appeal. 
{¶ 10} At his disciplinary hearing, Mariotti acknowledged that he had 
agreed to help Borisenko and expressed genuine remorse for his neglect.  He also 
testified that he had informed Borisenko that he did not have a strong case and that 
he was going to have to pay the plaintiff some amount to settle it.  Because relator 
presented no evidence that Borisenko had any viable counterclaim or defense to the 
eviction complaint, the board could not determine whether the outcome would have 
been different in the absence of Mariotti’s neglect. 
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated and the board found that Mariotti’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.4(b) (requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions regarding the 
representation), and 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer 
does not maintain professional-liability insurance). 
{¶ 12} At the hearing, relator sought to withdraw—and requested that the 
panel dismiss—three additional alleged violations based on the insufficiency of the 
evidence.  The panel unanimously granted that request with respect to one alleged 
violation, but the panel and board found that relator had presented clear and 
convincing evidence that when Mariotti sent Borisenko the text message falsely 
stating that “[e]verything is fine,” Mariotti violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) 
(requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter) and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
{¶ 13} We accept these findings of misconduct. 
 
 
January Term, 2019 
 
5
Count II: The Lyons Case 
{¶ 14} In May 2017, Danielle Lyons retained Mariotti to represent her in a 
criminal matter that was pending against her in Cuyahoga County.  Her family paid 
Mariotti an initial retainer of $800, but he did not deposit the money into his client 
trust account.  He did not reduce the fee agreement to writing or inform Lyons that 
he did not carry professional-liability insurance. 
{¶ 15} At a later time, Lyons informed Mariotti that she was a defendant in 
a related criminal case that was pending in Geauga County.  Mariotti acknowledges 
(1) that Lyons believed he would represent her in the Geauga County case after 
resolving her Cuyahoga County case and (2) that her family attempted to wire him 
an additional $400 as payment for that representation—though he testified that he 
never retrieved that payment.  Mariotti did not attend Lyons’s Geauga County bond 
hearing or otherwise appear in that case, and Lyons obtained other representation. 
{¶ 16} The parties stipulated and the board found that Mariotti’s conduct 
alleged in this count violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(c) (permitting a lawyer to limit the 
scope of a new or existing representation if the limitation is reasonable under the 
circumstances and communicated to the client, preferably in writing), 1.4(c), and 
1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit advance legal fees and expenses into a client 
trust account, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses 
incurred).1 
{¶ 17} We accept these findings of misconduct. 
Count III: Failure to Cooperate 
{¶ 18} Mariotti admits that he failed to respond to relator’s requests for 
written responses to the grievances filed against him by Borisenko and Lyons and 
that he provided documents and other responses to relator only after being 
compelled by subpoena to do so.  Consequently, the parties stipulated and the board 
                                                          
 
1. The panel unanimously dismissed one additional alleged violation based on the insufficiency of 
the evidence. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
found that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) (both requiring 
a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). 
{¶ 19} We accept these findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 20} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 21} The parties stipulated that four aggravating factors are present.  
Specifically, Mariotti has prior CLE and registration suspensions, engaged in a 
pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, and had an interim default 
suspension imposed for his initial failure to cooperate in this proceeding.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1), (3), (4), and (5).  The board agreed, and based on 
Mariotti’s false statement to Borisenko that everything was fine in his case, the 
board found that he had also acted with a dishonest or selfish motive.  See Gov.Bar 
R. V(13)(B)(2).  But the board also found that Mariotti’s full and free disclosure to 
the panel, cooperative attitude during the hearing, and genuine remorse were 
mitigating factors.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(4). 
{¶ 22} The parties suggested that the appropriate sanction for Mariotti’s 
stipulated misconduct is a one-year suspension, fully stayed on conditions, 
including that he complete six hours of CLE in law-office management and serve a 
one-year period of monitored probation. 
{¶ 23} But in addition to adopting the parties’ stipulations of misconduct, 
the board found that Mariotti had failed to keep Borisenko informed, and had 
actually lied to him, about the status of his legal matter in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
1.4(a)(3) and 8.4(c).  The board noted that Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 
74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237 (1995), syllabus, stands for the proposition that 
an actual suspension from the practice of law is the presumptive sanction for 
January Term, 2019 
 
7
misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.  In that case, 
we suspended an attorney from the practice of law for six months based on findings 
that he had fabricated court documents and continued to lie to his client for several 
months in an attempt to conceal his inaction in the client’s case. 
{¶ 24} The board also considered several cases in which the presence of 
mitigating factors resulted in the imposition of fully stayed suspensions on 
attorneys who engaged in dishonest conduct.  For example, in Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Fumich, 116 Ohio St.3d 257, 2007-Ohio-6040, 878 N.E.2d 6, we imposed a fully 
stayed one-year suspension on an attorney who falsely told a client that he had 
settled a case and paid the “settlement” out of his personal funds rather than inform 
the client that the case had been dismissed two years earlier.  No aggravating factors 
were present in that case, but mitigating factors included a clean disciplinary 
history, payment of restitution, cooperation in the disciplinary process, and 
evidence of the attorney’s excellent character and reputation. 
{¶ 25} And in Toledo Bar Assn. v. Crosser, 147 Ohio St.3d 499, 2016-Ohio-
8257, 67 N.E.3d 789, we imposed a fully stayed one-year suspension on an attorney 
for neglecting a client matter, failing to respond to the client’s requests for 
information regarding the status of the matter, and attempting to conceal her neglect 
with a series of misrepresentations.  The only aggravating factor was Crosser’s prior 
attorney-registration suspension, and mitigating factors included her payment of 
restitution, cooperation in the disciplinary process, good character and reputation, 
and acceptance of responsibility for her actions. 
{¶ 26} Noting that Mariotti had fully cooperated in the disciplinary 
proceedings on remand and expressed genuine remorse for his misconduct, the 
board recommends that he be suspended from the practice of law for one year, with 
the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that he complete six hours of CLE 
related to law-office management, commit no further misconduct, and serve a one-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
year period of monitored probation focused on client communication and client-
trust-account management. 
{¶ 27} Having reviewed the record and considered Mariotti’s misconduct, 
the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and our precedent, we find that 
Mariotti’s isolated false assurances that everything was fine and that the case was 
“still going on” as he attempted to negotiate issues related to the default judgment 
do not rise to the level of the dishonest and fraudulent course of conduct present in 
Fowerbaugh.  We do not condone Mariotti’s failure to clearly delineate the scope 
of his representation, his neglect of a client matter, his failure to reasonably 
communicate with a client, his failure to deposit an unearned fee into his client trust 
account, or his false assurances to a client.  But in accord with our holdings in 
Fumich and Crosser, we believe that a one-year suspension, stayed on the 
conditions recommended by the board, will adequately protect the public from 
future harm. 
{¶ 28} Accordingly, Mark Mariotti is suspended from the practice of law 
for one year, fully stayed on the conditions that he (1) complete six hours of CLE 
in law-office management in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, (2) 
complete a one-year period of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(21), 
focused on client communication and the proper management of his client trust 
account, and (3) engage in no further misconduct.  If Mariotti fails to comply with 
any condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the full one-year 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to Mariotti. 
Judgment accordingly. 
FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, J., would suspend respondent from the 
practice of law for one year, with six months stayed on conditions. 
DONNELLY, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
January Term, 2019 
 
9
Brenda M. Johnson and Jordan D. Lebovitz; and Heather M. Zirke, Bar 
Counsel, and Kari L. Burns, Assistant Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Mark Mariotti, pro se. 
_________________