_____________ 

 

 

_________________________________________________________ 

 

 

_________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA 

January 2013 Term 

_____________ FILED 

June 13, 2013 

No. 12-0228 released at 3:00 p.m. 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
 

Petitioner
 

v. 

DANIEL R. GRINDO,
 

Respondent
 

Lawyer Disciplinary Proceeding 

PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND OTHER SANCTIONS 

Submitted: May 14, 2013
 

Filed: June 13, 2013
 

Rachael L. Fletcher Cipoletti, Esq. Daniel R. Grindo, Esq. 

Chief Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel Pro Se 

Office of Disciplinary Counsel Law Office of Daniel R. Grindo, PLLC 

Charleston, West Virginia Gassaway, West Virginia 

Counsel for the Petitioner 

The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
 

1. “This Court is the final arbiter of legal ethics problems and must 

make the ultimate decisions about public reprimands, suspensions or annulments of 

attorneys’ licenses to practice law.” Syl. pt. 3, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Blair, 174 

W. Va. 494, 327 S.E.2d 671 (1984). 

2. “A de novo standard applies to a review of the adjudicatory record 

made before the Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar [currently, the 

Hearing Panel Subcommittee of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board] as to questions of law, 

questions of application of the law to the facts, and questions of appropriate sanctions; 

this Court gives respectful consideration to the Committee’s recommendations while 

ultimately exercising its own independent judgment. On the other hand, substantial 

deference is given to the Committee’s findings of fact, unless such findings are not 

supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.” Syl. pt. 

3, Legal Ethics of W. Va. v. McCorkle, 192 W. Va. 286, 452 S.E.2d 377 (1994). 

3. “In deciding on the appropriate disciplinary action for ethical 

violations, this Court must consider not only what steps would appropriately punish the 

respondent attorney, but also whether the discipline imposed is adequate to serve as an 

effective deterrent to other members of the Bar and at the same time restore public 

i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

confidence in the ethical standards of the legal profession.” Syl. pt. 3, Committee on 

Legal Ethics v. Walker, 178 W. Va. 150, 358 S.E.2d 234 (1987). 

4. “Rule 3.16 of the West Virginia Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary 

Procedure enumerates factors to be considered in imposing sanctions and provides as 

follows: ‘In imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, unless otherwise 

provided in these rules, the Court [West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals] or Board 

[Lawyer Disciplinary Board] shall consider the following factors: (1) whether the lawyer 

has violated a duty owed to a client, to the public, to the legal system, or to the 

profession; (2) whether the lawyer acted intentionally, knowingly, or negligently; (3) the 

amount of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and (4) the 

existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.’” Syl. pt. 4, Office of Lawyer 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Jordan, 204 W. Va. 495, 513 S.E.2d 722 (1998). 

5. “Mitigating factors which may be considered in determining the 

appropriate sanction to be imposed against a lawyer for violating the Rules of 

Professional Conduct include: (1) absence of a prior disciplinary record; (2) absence of a 

dishonest or selfish motive; (3) personal or emotional problems; (4) timely good faith 

effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct; (5) full and free 

disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings; (6) 

inexperience in the practice of law; (7) character or reputation; (8) physical or mental 

disability or impairment; (9) delay in disciplinary proceedings; (10) interim 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rehabilitation; (11) imposition of other penalties or sanctions; (12) remorse; and (13) 

remoteness of prior offenses.” Syl. pt. 3, Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Scott, 213 W. Va. 

209, 579 S.E.2d 550 (2003). 

6. “Aggravating factors in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding are any 

considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be 

imposed.” Syl. pt. 4, Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Scott, 213 W. Va. 209, 579 S.E.2d 550 

(2003). 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Per Curiam: 

This is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding arising from a complaint filed 

against Respondent Daniel R. Grindo (“Mr. Grindo”) by Petitioner Lawyer Disciplinary 

Board (“LDB” or “the Board”). A Hearing Panel Subcommittee (“HPS”) of the LDB 

determined that Mr. Grindo violated three Rules of Professional Conduct as a result of 

conduct stipulated to by the parties. Consequently, the HPS recommended that Mr. 

Grindo be admonished along with other sanctions.1 

1 In addition to admonishment, the HPS originally recommended the following sanctions: 

B. That Respondent shall have his law office audited by an 

expert to evaluate the efficiency of the management of the 

same and implement any changes deemed necessary in the 

expert’s report. To that end, the HPS has received a detailed 

report (17 pages in length) with attached exhibits from 

Affinity Consulting Group, which outlined the practice 

management techniques and technologies which were 

identified and recommended in order to assist Respondent in 

complying [sic] with violations. The report was 

comprehensive and included a number of practice 

management suggestions which should assist Respondent in 

conducting his law practice in a manner in which would avoid 

further problems similar to those described in the statement of 

charges. 

C. That Respondent cause said law office expert to return 6 

months after his initial assessment to conduct an evaluation as 

to the implementation of the recommended changes. It is 

anticipated that there will be a follow-up in January or 

February, 2013, by the same consulting group. 

D. That Respondent shall complete an additional 3 hours of 

CLE during the 2012-2014 reporting period, specifically in 

(continued . . .) 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Grindo does not contest the findings that he committed violations of 

the Rule of Professional Conduct and he requests this Court to accept the LDB’s 

recommendation. However, in January 2013, this Court issued an order indicating that we 

may not concur with the recommended disposition. Therefore, we ordered the parties to 

submit briefs and we set this case for oral argument pursuant to Rule 19 of the Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. Mr. Grindo did not present himself for the oral argument of this 

case.

2 In addition, counsel for the LDB notified this Court at that time that Mr. Grindo 

had failed to timely file a brief as counsel in an unrelated case before this Court. In light 

of these two facts, counsel for the LDB stated that she could no longer recommend 

admonishment as an appropriate sanction. However, Mr. Grindo subsequently filed the 

brief in the unrelated case within the extended time period granted by this Court.3 

the area of ethics and office management over and above that 

already required by the Mandatory Continuing Legal 

Education Commission. 

E. Pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary 

Procedure, Respondent shall pay costs of this disciplinary 

proceeding. 

2 On May 14, 2013, Mr. Grindo filed a motion for additional hearing with this Court in 

which he apologized for his failure to appear at oral argument and indicated that this 

failure was due to a mistake in his calendar in which he believed that the oral argument 

was scheduled for May 16, instead of May 14, 2013. Mr. Grindo requested that this Court 

grant him another opportunity to appear and be heard on this matter. Counsel for the LDB 

responded that the LDB had no objection if this Court believed that oral argument is 

necessary. By order entered on May 20, 2013, this Court refused Mr. Grindo’s motion for 

an additional hearing. 

3 Specifically, the original deadline for Mr. Grindo to file a brief or summary response in 

the unrelated case was April 22, 2013. Mr. Grindo failed to file a pleading by that date. 

(continued . . .) 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the reasons provided below, this Court finds that a public reprimand 

and other sanctions recommended by the Lawyer Disciplinary Board are appropriate 

under the facts of this case, and these sanctions are hereby imposed. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Mr. Grindo practices law in Braxton County, West Virginia. He was 

admitted to the West Virginia State Bar in September 2002. The Office of Disciplinary 

Counsel (“ODC”) has filed a two-count complaint against Mr. Grindo. The parties have 

stipulated to the allegations in the complaint which are set forth below. 

A. Count I 

In August 2009, Mr. Grindo filed a Petition for Appeal on behalf of Jeffrey 

Skidmore in this Court which challenged an adverse circuit court ruling. This Court 

subsequently granted the petition for appeal and issued a briefing/scheduling order on 

December 21, 2009, requiring Mr. Grindo to file an appellant’s brief with this Court 

within thirty days of receipt. 

As a result, by order dated April 30, 2013, this Court directed Mr. Grindo to file a brief or 

summary response within 20 days of the order. Mr. Grindo subsequently filed the 

pleading on May 15 which was within the 20-day time period. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When Mr. Grindo failed to submit a brief within the requisite time, the 

Clerk of this Court contacted Mr. Grindo in March 2010 by telephone. Mr. Grindo 

informed the Clerk that he would send his brief the next day. However, by June 8, 2010, 

Mr. Grindo still had not filed an appellant’s brief. As a result, the Clerk’s office of this 

Court mailed a letter to Mr. Grindo giving him an additional twenty days from receipt of 

the letter to file the brief. Mr. Grindo did not file a brief or otherwise respond to the 

Clerk’s letter. 

In September 2010, Mr. Grindo’s dilatory conduct with regard to filing the 

brief was presented to this Court for imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 10(e) of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. By order of that same day, this Court directed Mr. Grindo 

to file the brief of the appellant within 15 days of his receipt of the order. This Court also 

referred the matter to the ODC. In response, the ODC initiated a complaint against Mr. 

Grindo pursuant to Rule 2.4 of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure. On or about 

September 17, 2010, the ODC sent Mr. Grindo a complaint requiring a verified response 

within 20 days of receipt. 

On October 4, 2010, Mr. Grindo filed Mr. Skidmore’s appellate brief with 

this Court.4 On or about October 12, 2010, Mr. Grindo filed a verified response to the 

4 On April 4, 2011, this Court issued an opinion in which we granted partial relief to Mr. 

Grindo’s client, Mr. Skidmore. 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ethics complaint against him in which he stated that he was handling Mr. Skidmore’s 

case on a pro bono basis and admitted that he failed to adhere to this Court’s briefing 

schedule. 

As a result of Mr. Grindo’s conduct in failing to timely pursue the appeal 

on behalf of Mr. Skidmore, the Lawyer Disciplinary Board found that Mr. Grindo 

violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct which provides that “[a] lawyer 

shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” In addition, 

because Mr. Grindo failed to comply with this Court’s briefing schedule and failed to 

expedite the litigation in the interests of Mr. Skidmore and the justice system, the Board 

found that Mr. Grindo violated Rule 3.2 and Rule 3.4(c) of the Rules of Professional 

Conduct. According to Rule 3.2, “[a] lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite 

litigation consistent with the interest of the client.” Rule 3.4 provides that “[a] lawyer 

shall not . . . (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for 

an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists. 

Count II 

On or about June 16, 2011, Mr. Grindo filed a Notice of Appeal with this 

Court on behalf of Joseph Dobbins. This Court then issued a briefing/scheduling order on 

June 21, 2011, requiring Mr. Grindo to file his brief to perfect the appeal by July 18, 

2011. Mr. Grindo filed the required appendix on or about July 29, 2011, but failed to file 

the Petitioner’s Brief. As a result, the Clerk of this Court contacted Mr. Grindo by 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

telephone on several occasions requesting the filing of the appellate brief. Mr. Grindo 

advised the Clerk that he would promptly file the brief, but he failed to do so. 

On or about August 26, 2011, the opposing party in Mr. Dobbins’ case filed 

a Motion to Dismiss with this Court for Mr. Grindo’s failure to perfect the appeal. This 

Court granted the motion by order entered September 8, 2011. This Court thereafter 

referred the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

Consequently, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel initiated a complaint 

which it sent to Mr. Grindo requesting a verified response within 20 days of receipt. On 

or about October 13, 2011, Mr. Grindo filed a verified response in which he 

acknowledged that he failed to either file a motion to withdraw or otherwise comply with 

the order of this Court directing him to perfect the appeal on Mr. Dobbins’ behalf. The 

Lawyer Disciplinary Board found that because Mr. Grindo failed to comply with this 

Court’s briefing schedule and failed to expedite the litigation in the interest of Mr. 

Dobbins and the justice system, Mr. Grindo violated Rule 3.2 and Rule 3.4(c) of the 

Rules of Professional Conduct. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

This Court’s standard of review in lawyer disciplinary cases is well settled. 

We previously have made clear that “[t]his Court is the final arbiter of legal ethics 

problems and must make the ultimate decisions about public reprimands, suspensions or 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

annulments of attorneys’ licenses to practice law.” Syl. pt. 3, Committee on Legal Ethics 

v. Blair, 174 W. Va. 494, 327 S.E.2d 671 (1984). In addition, we have set forth the 

standard for our consideration of recommendations of the LDB as follows: 

A de novo standard applies to a review of the 

adjudicatory record made before the Committee on Legal 

Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar [currently, the Hearing 

Panel Subcommittee of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board] as to 

questions of law, questions of application of the law to the 

facts, and questions of appropriate sanctions; this Court gives 

respectful consideration to the Committee’s recommendations 

while ultimately exercising its own independent judgment. 

On the other hand, substantial deference is given to the 

Committee’s findings of fact, unless such findings are not 

supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on 

the whole record. 

Syl. pt. 3, Legal Ethics of W.Va. v. McCorkle, 192 W. Va. 286, 452 S.E.2d 377 (1994). 

Mr. Grindo does not dispute the allegations as charged. Therefore, the sole issue for this 

Court is deciding the appropriate sanctions. This issue is governed by a de novo standard 

of review. Having set forth the appropriate standard of review, we proceed to consider the 

question before us. 

III. DISCUSSION 

The sole issue in this case is the appropriate sanctions for Mr. Grindo’s 

violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 3.15 of the Rules of Lawyer 

Disciplinary Procedure sets forth permissible sanctions for lawyer misconduct as 

follows: 

A Hearing Panel Subcommittee may recommend or 

the Supreme Court of Appeals may impose any one or more 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of the following sanctions for a violation of the Rules of 

Professional Conduct or pursuant to Rule 3.14: (1) probation; 

(2) restitution; (3) limitation on the nature or extent of future 

practice; (4) supervised practice; (5) community service; (6) 

admonishment; (7) reprimand; (8) suspension; or (9) 

annulment. When a sanction is imposed the Hearing Panel 

Subcommittee may recommend and the Court may order the 

lawyer to reimburse the Lawyer Disciplinary Board for the 

costs of the proceeding. Willful failure to reimburse the 

Board may be punished as contempt of the Court. 

To assist this Court in achieving both consistency and fairness in lawyer disciplinary 

matters, we have recognized a number of factors to be considered in fashioning the 

proper discipline for a lawyer who violates an ethics rule. Specifically, this Court has 

held: 

In deciding on the appropriate disciplinary action for 

ethical violations, this Court must consider not only what 

steps would appropriately punish the respondent attorney, but 

also whether the discipline imposed is adequate to serve as an 

effective deterrent to other members of the Bar and at the 

same time restore public confidence in the ethical standards 

of the legal profession. 

Syl. pt. 3, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Walker, 178 W. Va. 150, 358 S.E.2d 234 (1987). 

Further, this Court has indicated: 

Rule 3.16 of the West Virginia Rules of Lawyer 

Disciplinary Procedure enumerates factors to be considered in 

imposing sanctions and provides as follows: “In imposing a 

sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, unless 

otherwise provided in these rules, the Court [West Virginia 

Supreme Court of Appeals] or Board [Lawyer Disciplinary 

Board] shall consider the following factors: (1) whether the 

lawyer has violated a duty owed to a client, to the public, to 

the legal system, or to the profession; (2) whether the lawyer 

acted intentionally, knowingly, or negligently; (3) the amount 

of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer’s 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

misconduct; and (4) the existence of any aggravating or 

mitigating factors.” 

Syl. pt. 4, Office of Lawyer Disc. Counsel v. Jordan, 204 W. Va. 495, 513 S.E.2d 722 

(1998). With regard to what constitutes mitigating factors, this Court previously has held: 

Mitigating factors which may be considered in 

determining the appropriate sanction to be imposed against a 

lawyer for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct 

include: (1) absence of a prior disciplinary record; (2) absence 

of a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) personal or emotional 

problems; (4) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to 

rectify consequences of misconduct; (5) full and free 

disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward 

proceedings; (6) inexperience in the practice of law; (7) 

character or reputation; (8) physical or mental disability or 

impairment; (9) delay in disciplinary proceedings; (10) 

interim rehabilitation; (11) imposition of other penalties or 

sanctions; (12) remorse; and (13) remoteness of prior 

offenses. 

Syl. pt. 3, Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Scott, 213 W. Va. 209, 579 S.E.2d 550 (2003). We 

have defined aggravating factors as follows: “Aggravating factors in a lawyer 

disciplinary proceeding are any considerations or factors that may justify an increase in 

the degree of discipline to be imposed.” Syl. pt. 4, id. 

The HPS found that Mr. Grindo knowingly and intentionally violated duties 

owed to his clients and the legal system. It also determined that Mr. Grindo’s conduct 

caused actual injury to his clients and potential injury to the reputation and integrity of 

the legal profession. Further, the HPS found that the following mitigating factors were 

present: 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. full and free disclosure to the Office of Disciplinary 

Counsel; 2. a cooperative attitude toward proceedings; 3. 

remedial measures in his law office, including, but not limited 

to retaining the services of Affinity Consulting [S]ervices to 

conduct an audit of his law office and his law office 

management to be scheduled in the immediate future.5 [Mr. 

Grindo] also indicated that he is scheduled for a continuing 

legal education seminar on law office management; 4. [Mr. 

Grindo] has acknowledged that he became overextended with 

his growing practice and needed both assistance and to 

withdraw from some of the extra-curricular activities. To that 

end, [Mr. Grindo] has hired a new associate as of March 18, 

2012 and has prioritized his other obligations; and 5. 

personal, family problems during the relevant time period, 

including that [Mr. Grindo’s] son was being seen on the a 

[sic] possible spinal tumor that stemmed from some leg 

weakness he was experiencing. This condition resulted in 

much testing and diagnosis. After it was determined that he 

did not have a spinal tumor, he was treated and diagnosed 

with ketotic hypoglycemia. This diagnosis involved extensive 

testing at Charleston Area Medical Center, Thomas 

Memorial, and ultimately the Pittsburgh Children’s Hospital; 

and 6. remorse, as it is [Mr. Grindo’s] sincere stated intention 

to provide quality legal representation to the State of West 

Virginia and [Mr. Grindo] does not believe his misconduct in 

this matter is indicative of the quality of work that he is 

capable of providing in the future. 

(Footnote added). Finally, the HPS found the presence of the following aggravating 

factors: 

5 The Board indicates in its brief that the HPS withheld its decision until an expert on law 

office management evaluated Mr. Grindo’s office procedures. The HPS received and 

reviewed a detailed report with attached exhibits from Affinity Consulting Group which 

outlined the practice management techniques and technologies which were identified and 

recommended in order to assist Mr. Grindo. The HPS concluded that the report was 

comprehensive and included a number of practice management suggestions which should 

assist Mr. Grindo in conducting his law practice in a manner which would avoid further 

problems like those in the instant case. 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. experience in the practice of law; 2. prior disciplinary 

action by the Investigative Panel of the Lawyer Disciplinary 

Board for neglect; 3 pattern and practice of not diligently 

pursuing clients’ interests; 4. pattern and practice of failing to 

expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his clients 

and the justice system; and 5. pattern and practice of failing to 

respond to briefing schedules and requests from the Supreme 

Court of Appeals of West Virginia. 

(Footnote omitted). Mr. Grindo does not challenge and this Court finds no reason to 

disturb these findings. Therefore, we will now proceed to apply our law set forth above to 

these facts to determine the appropriate sanction in this case. 

This Court finds that in light of Mr. Grindo’s past history of being 

admonished by the Investigative Panel of the LDB, there is case law that supports a 30­

day suspension of Mr. Grindo’s law license. See, e.g., Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. 

Sullivan, __ W. Va. __, 740 S.E.2d 55 (2013). Also, the fact that Mr. Grindo failed to 

respond to the deadlines and entreaties of this Court regarding the filing of briefs 

certainly weighs heavily against Mr. Grindo in determining his appropriate discipline. 

For these reasons, we believe that admonishment is not a sufficient sanction under these 

facts. 

However, this Court also must consider the large number of mitigating 

factors in this case, particularly the remedial measures taken by Mr. Grindo such as hiring 

another associate to assist in managing the responsibilities of his law practice and his 

employment of the services of a law office management expert. In addition, this Court 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

takes special note of the fact that a serious medical issue involving a member of Mr. 

Grindo’s family dominated a significant portion of Mr. Grindo’s time and attention 

during the relevant time period. In light of these mitigating factors, this Court believes 

that suspending Mr. Grindo’s license would be unduly severe. 

After careful consideration of the facts of this case, including the mitigating 

and aggravating factors, this Court finds that the appropriate sanction is a public 

reprimand in addition to the other sanctions originally recommended by the HPS. A 

public reprimand is a more severe sanction than admonishment but a lesser sanction than 

suspension of Mr. Grindo’s law license. We are persuaded that a public reprimand and 

the other sanctions appropriately punish Mr. Grindo. We also are confident that these 

sanctions are adequate to serve as an effective deterrent to other members of the Bar. 

Finally, we believe that these sanctions are sufficient to restore public confidence in the 

ethical standards of the legal profession. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, we impose the following discipline on Mr. 

Grindo as respondent to this proceeding: 

(1) That Mr. Grindo be reprimanded; 

(2) That Mr. Grindo continue to implement the 

practice management suggestions contained in the detailed 

report prepared by Affinity Consulting Group for the purpose 

of avoiding further problems of the kind that gave rise to the 

instant disciplinary proceedings; 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3) That Mr. Grindo, if he has not already done so, 

cause the law office expert to return to conduct an evaluation 

of the implementation of the recommended changes. 

(4) That Mr. Grindo shall complete an additional 3 

hours of continuing legal education during the 2012-2014 

reporting period, specifically in the area of ethics and office 

management over and above that already required by the 

Mandatory Legal Education Commission. 

(5) Pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of Lawyer 

Disciplinary Procedure, Mr. Grindo shall pay the costs of this 

disciplinary proceeding. 

Public Reprimand and other sanctions imposed. 

13