Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Gerchak

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Gerchak, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4305.] 
 
 
 
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-4305 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. GERCHAK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Gerchak, Slip Opinion No.  
2015-Ohio-4305.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to communicate basis of fee—Failure to hold 
client funds in client trust account—Failure to deposit pre-paid legal fees 
in client trust account—Two-year suspension, stayed on conditions—Two-
year probationary period. 
(No. 2015-0290—Submitted April 14, 2015—Decided October 20, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2014-061. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David John Gerchak of Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0069060, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1998.  On 
May 24, 2007, we suspended him for failure to complete continuing-legal-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
education requirements, In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Gerchak, 113 
Ohio St.3d 1522, 2007-Ohio-2487, 866 N.E.2d 1095, and in 2011 we suspended 
him for one year for violating Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and (d), with the entire 
suspension stayed on the conditions that he comply with the terms of a three-year 
Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program contract and commit no further misconduct, 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Gerchak, 130 Ohio St.3d 143, 2011-Ohio-5075, 956 
N.E.2d 292. 
{¶ 2} On September 3, 2014, a probable-cause panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline1 certified to the board a complaint 
filed by relator, Mahoning County Bar Association, against Gerchak.  In that 
complaint, relator alleged that Gerchak had committed multiple ethical violations 
regarding his recordkeeping in the representation of a criminal defendant. 
{¶ 3} The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors and agreed that a two-year suspension, fully 
stayed on conditions, is the appropriate sanction for Gerchak’s violation of three 
Rules of Professional Conduct.  The parties agreed that the charges regarding two 
additional alleged rule violations should be dismissed. 
{¶ 4} A panel of the board conducted a hearing at which it received the 
parties’ stipulations of fact, stipulated exhibits, and stipulations as to the 
misconduct.  At the hearing, Gerchak was the sole witness, addressing mostly 
mitigation.  The panel adopted the parties’ agreed sanctions, including a two-year 
probation period during which Gerchak would be required to work with a 
monitoring attorney, obtain a minimum of three hours of continuing legal education 
in law-office management, pay the costs of the proceeding, and commit no further 
misconduct.  The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
                                                 
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
recommendation of the panel.  We adopt the board’s findings, conclusions, and 
recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} In the spring of 2008, Jeff Blanche retained Gerchak to represent him 
in a matter in which he was charged with four counts of assaulting a police officer.  
He entered a plea and was sentenced to three years of community control with 
conditions.  Blanche later sought to have his conviction expunged or sealed, but 
Gerchak advised him that his sole avenue of recourse was a gubernatorial pardon.  
Gerchak gave Blanche a form to obtain fingerprints for a criminal-history check 
and instructions to collect information to pursue the pardon.  Blanche never 
returned the fingerprint card, even after he had been given a second one.  Blanche 
paid Gerchak $750 to pursue the pardon, but Gerchak did not deposit the funds in 
his client trust account. 
{¶ 6} In November 2012, Blanche retained Gerchak to represent him 
regarding charges of operating a vehicle while impaired (“OVI”).  Because Gerchak 
had not pursued the earlier pardon matter, he and Blanche agreed that the previously 
paid $750 would be applied to the representation regarding the OVI arrest.  Blanche 
made multiple additional payments, bringing the total he paid Gerchak to $1,400.  
Gerchak deposited none of the payments in his client trust account.  Gerchak did 
not have a written fee agreement for the OVI case, nor did he provide Blanche with 
a monthly statement detailing the time spent, funds disbursed, or funds remaining. 
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated and the board found that Gerchak’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(b) (requiring an attorney to communicate the nature and 
scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses within a 
reasonable time after commencing the representation), 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer 
to hold property of clients in an interest-bearing client trust account, separate from 
the lawyer’s own property), and 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit into a client 
trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance).  The parties 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
and the board also recommend that the remaining alleged violations be dismissed.  
We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties 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.  We also weigh evidence of the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13). 
{¶ 9} The parties stipulated and the board found as an aggravating factor 
that Gerchak had prior disciplinary offenses.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1).  As 
mitigating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found that Gerchak has 
demonstrated the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, that he has made full and 
free disclosure and demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 
proceedings, and that he has presented evidence of his good character and 
reputation apart from the charged misconduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(2), (4), 
and (5).  Upon the panel’s recommendation, the board also found as mitigating 
factors Gerchak’s acknowledgment of wrongdoing and full reimbursement of fees 
paid, even though some work was performed on the case.  The board also found 
that Gerchak acknowledged a need for and was receptive to mentoring. 
{¶ 10} The parties jointly recommended that Gerchak be suspended for two 
years, all stayed on conditions.  The board considered sanctions imposed in three 
cases that involved similar facts and violations:  Akron Bar Assn. v. Tomer, 138 
Ohio St.3d 302, 2013-Ohio-5494, 6 N.E.3d 1133 (attorney suspended for two years, 
stayed on conditions, for violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(c), 1.15, and 
8.4(c) that included client-trust-account improprieties; the attorney had no prior 
discipline, and the aggravating factors included multiple offenses and submission 
of fraudulent evidence during the disciplinary process), Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Dockry, 133 Ohio St.3d 527, 2012-Ohio-5014, 979 N.E.2d 313 (attorney received 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
one-year suspension, stayed on conditions, for multiple violations of Prof.Cond.R. 
1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2), 1.15(a)(5), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h); numerous mitigating factors were 
significant to the ultimate sanction), and Disciplinary Counsel v. Doellman, 127 
Ohio St.3d 411, 2010-Ohio-5990, 940 N.E.2d 928 (attorney received one year 
suspension, stayed on conditions, for client-trust-account violations, including 
failure to maintain an account and commingling personal, client, and business 
funds). 
{¶ 11} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and mitigating 
factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct, we 
adopt the board’s findings and recommended sanction.  Accordingly, David John 
Gerchak is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, all 
stayed on the conditions that he (1) submit to a two-year period of probation 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(21), during which he shall work with a monitoring 
attorney, (2) annually complete a minimum of three hours of continuing legal 
education on law-office management, and (3) commit no further misconduct.  If 
Gerchak fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and 
Gerchak will serve the entire two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Gerchak. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
David C. Comstock Jr. and Ronald E. Slipski, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
John B. Juhasz, for respondent. 
_________________