Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nigolian

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nigolian, 87 Ohio St.3d 147, 1999-Ohio-318.] 
 
 
 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. NIGOLIAN. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nigolian (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 147.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with six months stayed 
on condition — Failing to maintain identifiable accounts for client funds — 
Failing to maintain complete records of all client funds and to render 
appropriate accounts to client upon request — Neglecting an entrusted 
legal matter — Failing to carry out contract of employment — Failing to 
cooperate with a disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 99-1162 — Submitted August 25, 1999 — Decided October 27, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-60. 
 
On November 10, 1998, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed an 
amended complaint charging respondent, N. Stephen Nigolian of Beachwood, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0034132, with several violations of the 
Disciplinary Rules and a Rule for the Government of the Bar. The matter was 
heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of 
the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
Based on the stipulations, testimony, and exhibits, the panel found that 
respondent agreed to represent Edward Stanek (“Stanek”) in a civil assault and 
battery case filed by Peggy Ann Sommerville and in Stanek’s counterclaim for 
malicious prosecution.  Stanek’s father paid respondent $750 per month for the 
months of November 1995 through May 1996 as a retainer for legal services 
provided by respondent to Stanek, and in June 1996, respondent received an 
additional flat fee of ten thousand dollars.  Respondent deposited the payments into 
his personal bank account. 
 
 
2
 
In June 1997, Stanek terminated respondent’s representation.  Respondent 
did not provide Stanek with statements of professional services rendered and failed 
to render appropriate accounts to Stanek regarding the use of the ten-thousand-
dollar fee.  Moreover, during his representation of Stanek, respondent failed to 
maintain identifiable records reflecting the deposit of funds received from or on 
behalf of Stanek.  When Stanek demanded a return of the unearned portion of the 
ten-thousand-dollar payment, respondent agreed that he owed Stanek a refund of 
approximately $2,500. 
 
The panel further found that in November 1995, Rudolph Zimmerman paid 
respondent a $1,500 retainer for services to be performed by respondent in a child 
custody matter, which amount respondent deposited in his personal account.  
Respondent prepared a motion for change of custody and an accompanying 
affidavit, but never filed them.  After Zimmerman filed the motion and affidavit 
himself, several hearings were scheduled from February through May 1996, but 
were ultimately cancelled due to respondent’s failure to serve Zimmerman’s ex-
wife.  Respondent did not attend a July 1996 hearing at which the Zimmermans 
reached an agreement.  The magistrate, however, ordered respondent to appear and 
to prepare and submit a journal entry reflecting the agreement.  But respondent did 
not prepare and submit the journal entry, and Zimmerman was required to hire 
another attorney, who charged him $829.95 to complete the matter. 
 
After Zimmerman filed a grievance with relator, respondent offered to 
refund $750 of the retainer fee to Zimmerman.  But respondent not only failed to 
refund the retainer by the date of the panel hearing, he also did not provide 
Zimmerman with any accounting concerning the funds. 
 
In addition, the panel found that in September 1995, Pamela Ward retained 
respondent to prepare and file a joint motion for change of custody for which  
Ward’s former husband, John Ward, paid respondent $620 in attorney fees.  
 
 
3
Respondent prepared and filed a motion to modify a shared parenting plan rather 
than a motion to modify custody, but the court treated it as a motion to modify 
custody.  Following the postponement of scheduled hearings due to respondent’s 
inadequate preparation, the court dismissed the motion for failure to prosecute, and 
the Wards then hired a new attorney to complete the matter.  After John Ward filed 
a grievance with relator, respondent agreed to refund the $620 by April 1997.  
Respondent, however, did not to refund the money to John Ward until June 1998. 
 
The panel concluded that in the Stanek matter, respondent’s conduct violated 
DR 9-102(A)(2) (failing to maintain identifiable bank accounts for client funds), 9-
102(B)(3) (failing to maintain complete records of all funds of a client coming into 
lawyer’s possession and to render appropriate accounts to client regarding them), 
and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly refund unearned fees to client upon request).  
With respect to the Zimmerman matter, the panel concluded that respondent’s 
conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of employment), 9-102(A)(2), 9-
102(B)(3), 9-102(B)(4), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate with a 
disciplinary investigation). In the Ward matter, the panel concluded that 
respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(4). 
 
In mitigation, the panel found that neither Stanek nor his father appeared at 
the disciplinary hearing and that Stanek’s father, who had paid his son’s fees, never 
requested a refund.  Respondent testified that he had been reluctant to make 
restitution to these clients because he believed that it was inappropriate once the 
grievances had been filed.  After the panel hearing, respondent refunded $1,500 to 
Zimmerman and $2,500 to Stanek’s father.  Respondent further testified that 
during the period of his misconduct, he purchased an expensive house with the 
proceeds from a medical malpractice case involving his wife, and that in trying to 
maintain his family’s heightened standard of living, he took on more cases than he 
 
 
4
could competently handle.  He also admitted that he lacked proper office 
management skills.  Respondent was remorseful about his misconduct, and he said 
that he had reduced his practice to a few cases and had revised his office 
management practices. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for one year with six months of the suspension stayed on the condition 
that he take continuing legal education courses in office management.  The board 
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Becker & Mishkind Co., L.P.A., and Howard D. Mishkind; Kohrman, 
Jackson & Krantz and Ari H. Jaffe; Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, 
L.L.P., and Christopher M. Ernst, for relator. 
 
N. Stephen Nigolian, pro se, and Mary L. Cibella, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Given respondent’s restitution, remorse, and ultimate cooperation in the 
proceedings, a definite suspension from the practice of law is an appropriate 
sanction for his misconduct.  See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Caywood (1991), 62 
Ohio St.3d 185, 580 N.E.2d 1076.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for one year, with six months stayed on the condition that 
during the first six months of the suspension, he take six hours of continuing legal 
education courses in law office management.  Costs taxed to respondent.1 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
FOOTNOTES: 
 
 
 
5
1. 
We deny grievant Stanek’s motion for leave to file objections to the board’s 
report. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I dissent and would suspend 
respondent from the practice of law for one year. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.