OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 

 

 **** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING **** 

 The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of 

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice 

Thomas J. Moyer. 

 Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's 

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. 

Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative 

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. 

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. 

 NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the 

full texts of the opinions after they have been released 

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised 

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West 

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. 

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume 

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound 

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. 

 

Cleveland Bar Association v. Trombetta. 

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Trombetta (1994), Ohio 

St.3d .] 

Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- 

 Neglecting an entrusted legal matter -- Violating a 

 Disciplinary Rule -- Not appearing at a disability hearing 

 before the Industrial Commission in Columbus, Ohio, on 

 behalf of his client on June 11, 1991 or contacting the 

 commission to inform it that he was not going to appear at 

 the hearing or that he had withdrawn as counsel for the 

 claimant. 

 (No. 94-2256 -- Submitted December 7, 1994 -- Decided 

December 30, 1994.) 

 On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on 

Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-33. 

 By a complaint filed on April 18, 1994, relator, the 

Cleveland Bar Association, charged that respondent, Ignatius B. 

Trombetta of Solon, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0005269, 

refused to attend a disability hearing before the Industrial 

Commission in Columbus, Ohio, on behalf of his client, on June 

11, 1991, and that he had thereby violated DR 

1-102(A)(1)(violating a Disciplinary Rule), 

1-102(A)(4)(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5)(engaging in conduct 

prejudicial to the administration of justice), 

1-102(A)(6)(engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his 

fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3)(neglecting a legal matter 

entrusted to him), 7-101(A)(1)(failing to seek the lawful 

objectives of his client through reasonably available means 

permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules), 

7-101(A)(2)(failing to carry out a contract of employment 

entered into with a client), 7-101(A)(3)(prejudicing or 

damaging a client during the course of the professional 

relationship). Respondent was served with the complaint, and 

filed an answer essentially admitting the facts of the 
complaint, but stating that he discharged all duties incumbent 

upon him regarding the matter for which he was retained. 

 The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of 

Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 

("board") on August 2, 1994. Respondent was retained by Bernard 

L. Shuman to represent him in a workers' compensation matter. 

The matter was set for hearing before the Industrial Commission 

in Columbus, Ohio, on June 11, 1991. Before the hearing, 

Shuman telephoned respondent from Shuman's residence in Florida 

to discuss matters related to the hearing. During the 

conversation, respondent told Shuman that the evidence which 

Shuman intended to present at the hearing was insufficient to 

allow the commission to find in his favor. Respondent advised 

Shuman to withdraw his claim for permanent total disability 

benefits and refile it when he had sufficient evidence to 

support the claim. Shuman did not want to withdraw the claim 

or continue the hearing date. Shuman told respondent that he 

wanted to proceed and that he wanted respondent to attend the 

hearing. In response to Shuman's statements, it appears 

respondent told Shuman, "Bernie, you are not going to get me," 

and emphasized that he would not attend the hearing. 

Respondent also informed Shuman that he should obtain 

alternative counsel if he intended to go forward with the 

hearing. 

 The matter went to hearing on June 11, 1991. Shuman drove 

up from Florida to attend the hearing, but respondent did not 

appear or contact the commission to inform them that he was not 

going to appear at the hearing or that he had withdrawn as 

counsel for Shuman. 

 Based on its findings from the hearing, the panel found a 

violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(1). It then 

recommended the sanction recommended by the relator: a public 

reprimand. The board adopted the panel's findings and its 

recommendation, and also recommended that the costs of these 

proceedings be taxed to the respondent. 

 

 Marvin L. Karp and William Fulton, for relator. 

 Ignatius B. Trombetta, pro se. 

 Per Curiam. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we 

agree with the board's finding of misconduct and its 

recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly 

reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent. 

 Judgment accordingly. 

 Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and 

F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur. 

 Pfeifer, J., dissents. 

 Pfeifer, J., dissenting. I would dismiss the case.