Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Bodnar

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. BODNAR. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Bodnar (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire sanction 
stayed — Handling a matter attorney knows, or should know, he is not 
competent to handle — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter. 
(No. 98-1311 — Submitted August 19, 1998 — Decided January 13, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-87. 
 
In February 1991, Dr. William D. Boughton and his wife, Bernice, retained 
respondent, Andrew P. Bodnar, Jr. of Akron, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0032329, to prepare living trusts and related documents, including wills, for them.  
In April 1991, before the completion of the documents, Bernice died 
unexpectedly, and Dr. Boughton retained respondent to handle her estate. 
 
Because Bernice’s will had not been executed, she died intestate, and 
among her assets was a parcel of real estate.  Respondent, who was unfamiliar 
with how to transfer real estate from an intestate to a surviving spouse, delayed 
nearly three years before commencing proceedings in the Summit County Probate 
Court.  During the course of the proceedings, which extended over three years, Dr. 
Boughton was twice cited for being delinquent in his duties as administrator of his 
wife’s estate.  After Dr. Boughton died in January 1996, his daughter learned that 
the administration of Bernice’s estate had not been completed.  The daughter then 
retained other counsel who completed the administration of both estates in 
November 1997.  The daughter also lodged a grievance against respondent with 
relator, Akron Bar Association.  Relator then filed a complaint on October 15, 
1996 charging that respondent violated, inter alia, DR 6-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall 
not handle a matter which he knows, or should know, he is not competent to 
 
2
handle) and 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to 
him). 
 
The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”), which concluded that 
respondent had violated the above Disciplinary Rules.  The panel found in 
mitigation that respondent had voluntarily discontinued his probate practice and 
that no financial harm had resulted to any client, nor had respondent received any 
improper financial gain as a result of his conduct.  The panel recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months.  The board 
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
David Friedman and J. Bruce Hunsickler, for relator. 
 
Andrew P. Bodnar, Jr., pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  Because 
respondent has terminated his probate practice and because in this instance his 
conduct did not result in improper gain to him or financial harm to his client, we 
impose a lesser sanction than the board recommended.  Respondent is hereby 
suspended from the practice of law for six months with the entire six months 
stayed.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., not participating.