Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Markovich

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Markovich, 117 Ohio St.3d 313, 2008-Ohio-862.] 
 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. MARKOVICH. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Markovich, 117 Ohio St.3d 313, 2008-Ohio-862.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Multiple violations of Disciplinary Rules — 
One-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2007-1593 — Submitted October 9, 2007 — Decided March 6, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-059. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Edward P. Markovich of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0068046, has been admitted to the practice of law in Ohio since 
1997. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has 
recommended that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for one year, 
staying the last six months of the suspension on conditions, based on findings that 
he violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.  On review, we agree with 
the board that respondent committed professional misconduct by, among other 
infractions, neglecting two clients’ cases, helping a client violate a civil protection 
order, filing an unapproved dismissal entry, borrowing money from a client, and 
misusing his client trust account.  We also accept the board’s recommendation. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Akron Bar Association, charged respondent with 
violations of the Disciplinary Rules in seven different cases.  A panel of the board 
heard the matter, including the parties’ comprehensive stipulations, and then made 
findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended the one-year 
suspension with six months conditionally stayed.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Misconduct 
The Peyton Case 
{¶ 4} In May 2004, respondent agreed to help Jearlene Peyton administer 
her husband’s estate, which included real estate located in Summit County, Ohio.  
After respondent opened the estate, the Summit County Probate Court notified 
him that additional filings were due.  Respondent misfiled the necessary 
paperwork, and the probate court issued a show-cause order against his client. 
{¶ 5} Peyton learned that respondent had not complied with the probate 
court’s order when she contacted the probate court.  She discharged respondent 
and filed a grievance with relator.  Respondent offered to refund a $200 filing fee 
if Peyton would drop the grievance. 
{¶ 6} Consistent with stipulations, the board found that respondent had 
neglected his client and had attempted to avoid responsibility for this misconduct.  
We adopt this finding and agree that respondent thereby violated DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter) and 6-102 (a lawyer shall not 
attempt to exonerate himself or limit his liability to a client for personal 
malpractice). 
The Unapproved Dismissal Entry 
{¶ 7} While representing a plaintiff in federal court, respondent obtained 
opposing counsel’s permission for a voluntary dismissal of the complaint without 
prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(A), with the provision that respondent dismiss 
allegations against one of the defendants with prejudice and at plaintiff’s cost.  In 
preparing the entry, however, respondent wrongly represented that the allegations 
against the defendant had been dismissed with prejudice previously.  He also did 
not specify that the voluntary dismissal was at the plaintiff’s cost. 
{¶ 8} Respondent eventually corrected the dismissal entry with 
prompting from opposing counsel, but not for more than a year. 
January Term, 2008 
3 
{¶ 9} Consistent with the stipulations, the board found that respondent 
had misled the court and opposing counsel in filing the unapproved dismissal 
order.  We adopt this finding and agree that respondent thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving misrepresentation), 1-
102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely 
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
The Civil Protection Order 
{¶ 10} In July 2005, respondent represented a client against whom a civil 
protection order (“CPO”) had been issued.  Respondent had received notice of the 
order, which required his client to remain at least 500 feet from a woman and 
others named in the order and forbade the client from initiating contact with them, 
“their residences, * * * or babysitters.”  The order forbade contact through any 
means, including “through another person.” 
{¶ 11} Approximately five months later, respondent went to the woman’s 
residence with his client.  Respondent’s client remained in his car, and respondent 
approached the front door to confront a babysitter inside.  According to the 
stipulations, “Markovich knew that [the children’s mother] was not home and he 
intended to intimidate the babysitter to gain an advantage for his client.  
Markovich had, prior to the encounter, looked inside of the front door and/or 
window of the residence.” 
{¶ 12} Consistent with the stipulations, the board found that respondent 
had violated the CPO by appearing at the woman’s house with his client and 
speaking with the babysitter.  We adopt this finding and agree that he thereby 
violated DR l-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6). 
The McCloskey Case 
{¶ 13} Irene McCloskey retained respondent to represent her in a 
guardianship case and paid him a flat fee of $1,000, which included a filing fee.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
For approximately six months, respondent filed nothing in court and failed to 
respond to McCloskey’s inquiries about his progress.  Eventually, McCloskey 
filed the necessary paperwork herself, paying the $240 filing fee.  Respondent 
wrote a letter to a judge about the case, but contrary to his client’s expectations, 
did not file anything.  Respondent later refunded his client’s $1,000. 
{¶ 14} Consistent with the stipulations, the board found that respondent 
had abandoned his client’s case.  We adopt this finding and agree that respondent 
thereby violated DR 6-101(A)(3). 
The Maggio Case 
{¶ 15} Respondent retained $15,000 as a loan from Paula Maggio, his 
client and sister-in-law at the time, after obtaining that amount in settlement of a 
personal-injury claim.  Consistent with the stipulations, the board found that 
respondent had impermissibly transacted business with a client without disclosing 
the attendant risks and obtaining her consent.  We adopt this finding and agree 
that respondent thereby violated DR 5-104(A) (a lawyer shall not enter into a 
business transaction with a client unless the client has consented after full 
disclosure). 
The Client Trust Account 
{¶ 16} Respondent improperly used his client trust account by paying his 
administrative assistant with client funds.  The board found that respondent had 
impermissibly commingled his personal funds with entrusted client funds.  We 
adopt this finding and agree that respondent thereby violated DR 9-102(A) (a 
lawyer shall deposit client funds, other than advances for costs and expenses, in a 
separate identifiable bank account). 
Misconduct During Court Proceedings 
{¶ 17} In March 2005, respondent defended a client against criminal 
charges in Wayne County Common Pleas Court.  According to the stipulations, 
respondent “was continually disruptive, ignored court rulings, was inappropriate 
January Term, 2008 
5 
in his questioning, and discourteous to the Court and opposing counsel” during 
those proceedings.  The presiding judge cited respondent for contempt, and 
another judge sentenced him to ten days in jail, suspending the sentence on the 
conditions that respondent perform community service, pay a fine, obtain 
remedial continuing legal education, and apologize to the presiding judge.  When 
respondent failed to perform the community service, the second judge put him in 
jail for two days. 
{¶ 18} Consistent with the stipulations, the board found that respondent 
had refused to properly question witnesses, to interact with opposing counsel 
professionally, and to obey court rulings.  We adopt this finding and agree that 
respondent thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 7-106(C)(2) (a lawyer 
shall not ask any question that is intended to degrade a witness), and 7-106(C)(4) 
(a lawyer shall not assert his personal opinion as to the credibility of a witness). 
Sanction 
{¶ 19} In determining the appropriate sanction to impose for attorney 
misconduct, “we consider the duties violated, the actual or potential injury caused, 
the attorney’s mental state, the existence of aggravating or mitigating 
circumstances, and sanctions imposed in similar cases.”  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Ake, 111 Ohio St.3d 266, 2006-Ohio-5704, 855 N.E.2d 1206, ¶ 44.  We weigh the 
aggravating and mitigating factors to decide whether circumstances warrant a 
more lenient or exacting disposition.  See 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.”).  Because 
each disciplinary case involves unique facts and circumstances, we are not limited 
to the factors specified in the rule and may take into account “all relevant factors” 
in determining which sanction to impose.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 20} We have already discussed how respondent violated duties owed to 
his clients, the public, and the judicial system, and his concessions support that he 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
did so knowingly.  This court does not tolerate lawyers who neglect the interests 
of their clients or commingle funds.  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Peters (1999), 87 Ohio 
St.3d 348, 349-350, 721 N.E.2d 26 (attorney's neglect of entrusted legal matter 
and commingling of client funds and personal funds warranted 18-month 
suspension from practice of law, with final 12 months stayed on the condition that 
attorney submit to monitoring program).  Equally intolerable are lawyers who fail 
to advocate at trial within the rules of law and to act with civility and 
professionalism.  Disciplinary Counsel v. LoDico, 106 Ohio St.3d 229, 2005-
Ohio-4630, 833 N.E.2d 1235, ¶ 26, 35 (attorney’s repeated acts of defiance during 
court proceedings and his citations for contempt warranted an 18-month 
suspension, with the last six months stayed, and probation to include a 
psychological examination upon reinstatement). 
{¶ 21} The board found one aggravating factor – that respondent had 
committed multiple offenses.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d).  As mitigating 
factors, the board found that respondent had no previous disciplinary record, see 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), and had made restitution, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(c).  Respondent also submitted recommendations as to his good 
character and reputation apart from the underlying misconduct.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e).  We also accept these findings, which weigh in favor of 
leniency, and further find that respondent acknowledged the wrongfulness of his 
conduct and expressed genuine remorse. 
{¶ 22} As the board concluded, however, respondent’s practice is in dire 
need of rehabilitative oversight.  His failures to attend to his clients, defiance of 
court orders, and sometimes outrageous courtroom behavior, coupled with his 
misuse of his trust account and other improprieties, demand a period of actual 
suspension and subsequent monitoring to protect the public.  Respondent seems to 
accept this assessment, having stipulated to all the cited disciplinary violations 
and forgone any objection to the board’s recommended sanction. 
January Term, 2008 
7 
{¶ 23} We therefore suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio 
for one year.  Six months of the suspension are stayed on the conditions that 
respondent complete an 18-month monitored probation in accordance with 
Gov.Bar R. V(9) upon reinstatement and commit no further misconduct during 
the probation.  If respondent fails to comply with the conditions of the stay or 
probation, the stay will be lifted, and respondent shall serve the entire one-year 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., 
concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and O’CONNOR, J., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶ 24} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion with respect to the 
sanction imposed on respondent.  The board recommended that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law for one year and that the last six months of the 
suspension be stayed on conditions.  While the majority has concluded that the 
board’s recommendation was appropriate, I disagree and would impose a stricter 
sanction on respondent. 
{¶ 25} In total, respondent was charged with 13 violations of the 
Disciplinary Rules in seven different cases.  Respondent’s instances of 
misconduct were varied, frequent, and offensive to the profession and the public 
we serve.  In the ten years that he has been admitted to the practice of law in 
Ohio, respondent has engaged in a pattern of misconduct.  Respondent stipulated 
to the following violations:  
{¶ 26}  ● Misfiling necessary paperwork in a probate case, resulting in a 
show-cause order against his client, to which he did not respond; 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
{¶ 27} ● Attempting to limit his liability for his misconduct by offering to 
refund money to his client in exchange for her dismissing her grievance 
complaint; 
{¶ 28} ● Misrepresenting an opposing party’s agreement in a voluntary-
dismissal entry to the court and then taking more than a year to correct the entry; 
{¶ 29} ● Violating a civil protection order, intending to intimidate a 
person to gain an advantage for his client; 
{¶ 30} ● Neglecting his client in a guardianship case by failing to file 
documents in court and to respond to her inquiries, requiring his client to finally 
file the necessary documents herself; 
{¶ 31} ● Retaining a $15,000 loan from his client, who was also his sister-
in-law, without gaining her fully informed consent; 
{¶ 32} ● Commingling his personal funds with entrusted client funds; and 
{¶ 33} ● Improperly questioning witnesses, disobeying court rulings, and 
failing to interact with opposing counsel professionally, resulting in a citation for 
contempt from a judge of a common pleas court. 
{¶ 34} Respondent’s misconduct was extensive:  he has repeatedly 
violated his duties to the legal profession, the public, and the courts.  Therefore, 
respondent’s misconduct warrants a stronger sanction.  I would suspend 
respondent from the practice of law for one year, with no time stayed. 
 
O’CONNOR, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
William G. Chris and Alison J. Pfeister, for relator. 
Edward P. Markovich, pro se. 
______________________