Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Zena

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. Zena, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4585.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-4585 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ZENA. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Zena,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4585.] 
Attorney discipline—Neglecting entrusted legal matters—Failure to carry out 
employment contract—Intentionally causing damage or prejudice to 
client—Failure to render a full accounting of client funds or property 
upon request—One-year suspension, stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2012-0692—Submitted June 5, 2013—Decided October 23, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-059. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Thomas E. Zena of Boardman, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0007375, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1972.  In 
June 2011, relator, Mahoning County Bar Association, filed a multicount 
complaint against Zena, charging him with misconduct and violations of the Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct.1  The 
parties filed agreed stipulations of fact, rule violations, and aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and they also recommended a sanction. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline conducted a hearing on December 20, 2011, at which it heard the 
testimony of Zena and his character witnesses—three judges and a court 
magistrate.  The panel received 34 exhibits from relator, plus 12 exhibits and 49 
character letters from Zena.  The panel acknowledged that Zena’s ethical-rule 
violations resulted from issues in his personal life that are now resolved. 
{¶ 3} The parties stipulated that the appropriate sanction for the 
misconduct was a two-year suspension, all stayed on conditions.  However, based 
upon overwhelming evidence in support of Zena’s reputation for honesty and 
integrity during his 40-year legal career, the panel recommended that he be 
suspended from the practice of law for 12 months, all stayed on the conditions 
that he attend three hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) in law-office 
management and be monitored by a law-practice monitor selected by relator, for a 
period of 12 months. 
{¶ 4} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommended sanction. 
{¶ 5} We remanded the matter on November 26, 2012, for a 
determination whether any of the clients harmed by Zena’s conduct were entitled 
to restitution.  The panel and board now recommend that Zena make restitution of 
$3,000 to Joseph and Laurie Taylor. 
                                      
1 Relator charged respondent with misconduct under the applicable rules for acts occurring before 
and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 
supersede the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Although both the 
former and current rules are cited for the same acts, the allegations comprise a single continuing 
ethical violation. 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
{¶ 6} We adopt the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommended sanction. 
Stipulated Facts 
The McOwen Matter 
{¶ 7} In October 2003, Zena was contacted by Barbara McOwen, the 
mother of a former client, about some problems she was having with a general 
contractor and a subcontractor.  Zena agreed to help her, and in January 2004, he 
sent McOwen a letter with information about his legal fees and a copy of the 
complaint that he had drafted against the contractor.  The letter did not mention 
that Zena did not carry professional liability insurance. 
{¶ 8} Zena filed the complaint in February 2004, but he failed to act 
reasonably and diligently in representing McOwen.  He did not file an answer to 
the contractor’s counterclaim, did not respond to requests for discovery, and 
failed to appear for a sanctions hearing.  He also failed to respond to McOwen’s 
numerous inquiries about the case. 
{¶ 9} On June 23, 2005, the court entered a default judgment against 
McOwen on the contractor’s counterclaim and sanctioned her for failing to 
respond to discovery.  That same day, Zena voluntarily dismissed McOwen’s 
complaint without her knowledge or consent. 
{¶ 10} McOwen discharged Zena in July 2007, but in August 2008, Zena 
filed another complaint for McOwen against a subcontractor.  Zena withdrew as 
counsel in that case, and with the assistance of new counsel, the parties eventually 
settled the case. 
{¶ 11} After consulting with her new counsel, McOwen learned of the 
dismissal of her original complaint against the contractor and the default 
judgment entered against her on the contractor’s counterclaim.  In October 2009, 
she filed a motion asking the trial court to vacate the default judgment against her.  
The court granted McOwen’s motion, vacated the default judgment, and returned 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
the case to the active docket in January 2010.  Several months later, the contractor 
voluntarily dismissed his counterclaim. 
The Taylor Matter 
{¶ 12} On December 14, 1998, Zena filed a civil complaint for damages 
against Terry Harmon Motors, Inc., and General Motors Corporation on behalf of 
Joseph and Laurie Taylor.  Zena failed to respond to a motion for summary 
judgment filed by Harmon Motors, and he also ignored the Taylors’ numerous 
requests for information about their case. 
{¶ 13} The court granted summary judgment to Harmon Motors in 
October 2000, and on December 18, 2000, the court dismissed the Taylors’ case 
with prejudice but failed to serve the dismissal entry on counsel as required by 
Civ.R. 58(B).  The Taylors did not learn of the dismissal for almost ten years.  
Zena admitted that his failure to diligently follow up on the Taylors’ numerous 
inquiries about the case was initially negligent, but that it became misleading with 
the passage of time. 
The Crum Matter 
{¶ 14} In order to facilitate the settlement of a client’s personal-injury 
case, Zena negotiated a reduction of chiropractor J. Murphy Crum’s bill for 
services rendered to the injured party.  Zena promised to pay Dr. Crum the 
negotiated amount—$1,200—from the settlement proceeds, but he mistakenly 
delivered the doctor’s portion of the settlement to the client.  Dr. Crum repeatedly 
asked Zena for payment from 2004 to 2010.  He eventually filed a lawsuit against 
Zena and a grievance with relator.  Zena never denied that he owed Dr. Crum the 
money, but due to financial hardship, he did not satisfy this obligation until 
November 2010. 
Stipulated Disciplinary Violations 
{¶ 15} The parties stipulated that Zena’s conduct in these matters violated 
the following Disciplinary Rules:  DR 1-104(A) (requiring a lawyer to disclose to 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
the client that the lawyer lacks professional liability insurance), 6-101(A)(3) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to carry out a contract of 
employment for legal services), 7-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
intentionally prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of the 
professional relationship) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with 
reasonable diligence in representing a client) and 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer, 
upon request, to promptly render a full accounting of funds or property in which a 
client or third party has an interest).  The parties also stipulated that four other 
violations that were alleged in the complaint should be dismissed. 
{¶ 16} The panel and board adopted the parties’ stipulations of fact and 
misconduct and agreed that the remaining violations alleged in relator’s complaint 
should be dismissed.  We find that there is clear and convincing evidence in 
support of the stipulated rule violations. 
Sanction 
{¶ 17} In recommending a sanction, the panel and board considered the 
ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the sanctions imposed in similar cases.  
See Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 
N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  They also considered the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 18} The parties stipulated that two aggravating factors are present:  a 
pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) 
and (d).  As mitigating factors, they stipulated that Zena has no prior disciplinary 
record, has made full and free disclosure to the board and has cooperated in the 
proceedings, and has demonstrated his good character and reputation through 
character letters and testimony.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (e). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 19} The parties further stipulated that the appropriate sanction for 
Zena’s misconduct was a two-year suspension, entirely stayed on the conditions 
that he be monitored for three years by a law-practice monitor selected by relator, 
attend at least three hours of CLE in law-office management during each of those 
three years, represent clients in civil matters only with qualified co-counsel to 
assist him, and commit no further misconduct.  In his closing argument, however, 
relator’s counsel indicated that he would not object to a lesser sanction. 
{¶ 20} The panel and board rejected the parties’ stipulated sanction and 
recommend that we impose a one-year suspension, all stayed on the conditions 
that Zena attend no less than three hours of CLE in law-office management and be 
monitored by a law-practice monitor, selected by relator, for a period of 12 
months.  On remand from this court to address the propriety of restitution for the 
affected clients, the panel and board also recommend that Zena be ordered to 
make $3,000 restitution to Joseph and Laurie Taylor, that any moneys owed to 
Barbara McOwen be determined through her pending malpractice action against 
Zena, and that no restitution be made to Dr. Crum because Zena has already 
satisfied that obligation. 
{¶ 21} We find that there is clear and convincing evidence in support of 
the aggravating and mitigating factors.  We agree that Zena presented 
overwhelming evidence from four witnesses—an appellate court judge, two 
common pleas court judges, and a juvenile court magistrate—and character letters 
from 49 individuals (ten judges, two magistrates, 34 attorneys, two former clients, 
and a legal secretary) attesting to his reputation for honesty and integrity, his 
ability to practice law in general, and his talent as a criminal-defense attorney. 
{¶ 22} Zena has had no prior disciplinary action against him during his 
40-year career, and the evidence shows that much of Zena’s misconduct occurred 
during a time of great turmoil in his personal life.  He testified that the personal 
issues he faced have been resolved and should not reoccur.  He also testified that 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
moving forward, he intends to focus on his criminal-law practice and limit his 
civil practice to postdecree domestic-relations motions. 
{¶ 23} The board did not cite any case law in support of its recommended 
sanction.  For misconduct similar to Zena’s, we have imposed a one-year 
suspension, stayed on conditions including that the attorney serve one year of 
monitored probation, and maintain compliance with his mental-health contract 
with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program.  See Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Micciulla, 106 Ohio St.3d 19, 2005-Ohio-3470, 830 N.E.2d 332, ¶ 26-27.  
Micciulla engaged in conduct comparable to Zena’s in the handling of four 
separate client matters, but he also failed to maintain complete records of client 
funds in his possession and occasionally deposited unearned fees directly into his 
general operating account.  Id. at ¶ 17-18.  Like Zena, Micciulla had no prior 
disciplinary record and no dishonest or selfish motive, and he cooperated during 
relator’s investigation.  Id. at ¶ 21.  He also showed that he was very active in 
providing pro bono legal services, presented several letters from professional 
acquaintances highly commending his character, and established the existence of 
a mental disability that qualified as a mitigating factor pursuant to BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).  Id. at ¶ 23-24. 
{¶ 24} The purpose underlying a disciplinary sanction is not to punish the 
offender but to protect the public.  Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Neill, 103 Ohio 
St.3d 204, 2004-Ohio-4704, 815 N.E.2d 286, ¶ 53.  Based on the foregoing, we 
agree with the board’s findings that Zena is no longer a danger to clients and that 
no actual suspension from the practice of law is necessary to protect the public 
from harm. 
{¶ 25} Accordingly, we suspend Zena from the practice of law for one 
year, all stayed on the conditions that he (1) attend at least three hours of CLE on  
law-office management within 90 days, (2) serve one year of probation in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9) with a monitor selected by relator, (3) make 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
restitution to the Taylors in the amount of $3,000 within 90 days, and (4) commit 
no further misconduct.  If Zena violates the conditions of the stay, the stay will be 
lifted and he shall serve the one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Zena. 
____________________ 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
David Comstock Jr., Bar Counsel, and Ronald E. Slipski, for relator. 
John J. Juhasz, for respondent. 
__________________________