[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bogdanski, 135 Ohio St.3d 235, 2013-Ohio-398.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BOGDANSKI.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bogdanski, 135 Ohio St.3d 235, 

2013-Ohio-398.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Forging signature of client—Incompetent representation—

Failure to keep clients informed—Neglect of legal matters—Failure to 

cooperate with disciplinary investigation—Indefinite suspension with 

conditions for reinstatement.

(No. 2012-1331—Submitted January 9, 2013—Decided February 13, 2013.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-089. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, April Marie Bogdanski of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0074879, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2002. In 

October 2011, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Bogdanski with multiple 

violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for twice forging a client’s 

signature and then notarizing those signatures. In a second amended complaint, 

relator alleged that Bogdanski committed professional misconduct for her 

incompetence and neglect in two other client matters. 

{¶ 2} Bogdanski answered, admitting to most of the factual allegations 

lodged against her but, with one exception, denying that her conduct amounted to 

professional misconduct. Bogdanski, however, did not appear for the June 2012 

three-member panel hearing of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline.1

 Based on the record, including hearing testimony from five 

 

1. As evidence that Bogdanski received notice of the board hearing, the panel and board reports 

cite a certified-mail receipt signed by “C Reynolds.” The mail receipt signed by “C Reynolds,” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

witnesses, the panel determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that 

Bogdanski had committed the charged misconduct. As a sanction, relator 

recommended and the panel found that Bogdanski should be indefinitely 

suspended from the practice of law, with conditions on reinstatement. The board 

adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended 

sanction. No objections have been filed. 

{¶ 3} We, in turn, accept the board’s report and indefinitely suspend 

Bogdanski from the practice of law in Ohio. 

Misconduct 

Count I—Ruben Morales Matter 

{¶ 4} In 2010, while representing Ruben Morales, Bogdanski forged his 

signature on an affidavit, notarized that signature, and then filed the forged 

affidavit in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Bogdanski similarly 

forged Morales’s signature on the verification page of his response to a request 

for production of documents, notarized that signature, and served the forged 

document on opposing counsel. 

{¶ 5} We agree with the panel and board’s findings that Bogdanski’s 

conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(3)2

 (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly 

offering evidence the lawyer knows to be false), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from 

 however, was from relator, not Bogdanski. There does not appear to be any certified-mail receipt 

in the record confirming that Bogdanski received the hearing notice, even though the notice was 

sent to her attorney-registration address. Notwithstanding this fact, Disciplinary Counsel Jonathan 

Coughlan testified that Bogdanski had actual notice of the hearing date. Specifically, he stated 

under oath that Bogdanski appeared at his office in early May 2012 and acknowledged the June 20 

hearing date. He further testified that when Bogdanski opened her calendar to June, the hearing 

date was already documented. In addition, during the hearing, the panel chairperson stated that 

Bogdanski had agreed to the hearing date during a prehearing conference. 

2. The panel found a violation of “Prof.Cond.R. 3.3 (a lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence 

that the lawyer knows to be false),” while the board found a violation of “Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(3) 

[knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false].” We agree with the board that the 

specific subsection (a)(3) of the rule better describes the misconduct that was charged here, rather 

than the general Prof.Cond.R. 3.3 violation found by the panel. 
January Term, 2013 

3

engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 

8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 

administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 

conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 

Count II—Heather Phillips Matter 

{¶ 6} In 2010, Bogdanski worked as an independent contractor for the 

law firm Barr Jones & Associates. In February of that year, Heather Phillips 

retained the law firm to file a divorce complaint, and Bogdanski was assigned to 

the representation. At some point in late 2010, Bogdanski became disassociated 

from the law firm, but she continued representing Phillips. We concur in the 

panel and board’s findings that Bogdanski’s representation of Phillips was 

incompetent, that she failed to act with reasonable diligence and to keep her client 

reasonably informed, and that she persistently engaged in a “barrage of excusemaking” for her inadequate representation. 

{¶ 7} Specifically, in mid-December 2010, Bogdanski informed Phillips 

that she would file the divorce complaint. By December 30, 2010, the complaint 

had not been filed; Bogdanski claimed that she had car problems and had broken 

her finger. Bogdanski then told her client that she would mail the complaint by 

January 5, 2011. On January 25, however, after Phillips inquired about the 

complaint’s status, Bogdanski told her that the court had rejected the filing 

because she used the incorrect forms. The divorce complaint was finally filed on 

February 28, 2011, almost a year after Phillips’s initial consultation. 

{¶ 8} Bogdanski then failed to appear for the April 26 hearing, which 

was supposed to be the first and final hearing in the case because Phillips and her 

husband had previously agreed on all terms of the divorce in a memorandum of 

understanding. Bogdanski told Phillips that she missed the hearing because her 

car had broken down and she had left her cell phone at home. Bogdanski 

appeared late for the rescheduled May 31 hearing, but, more importantly, she did 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

not bring the necessary documents to complete the divorce, specifically, the 

memorandum of understanding. Bogdanski also incorrectly told the court that her 

client was requesting full custody of the parties’ two children—despite the fact 

that the memorandum of understanding stated that the parties had agreed to a 

shared-parenting arrangement. The case was then rescheduled so that Bogdanski 

could prepare the necessary paperwork. 

{¶ 9} By July 7, Bogdanski had not yet sent the draft shared-parenting 

agreement to Phillips, and after Phillips inquired, Bogdanski informed her that a 

thunderstorm had knocked out the power at a public library where she was 

working. On the day before the rescheduled July 26 final hearing, Bogdanski 

called the court’s bailiff, requesting that she review the shared-parenting 

agreement to determine whether it was correct. The bailiff declined. 

{¶ 10} Bogdanski then failed to appear for the following day’s hearing, 

even after Phillips and the bailiff tried unsuccessfully to reach her. Two days 

later, Bogdanski informed the bailiff that she had suffered from food poisoning 

and had asked someone else to inform the court but the person failed to do so. 

Phillips claims that Bogdanski never communicated to her why she missed the 

July hearing. Phillips thereafter hired new counsel and paid additional attorney 

fees to complete the divorce. The trial court later held Bogdanski in contempt for 

missing the two hearings, but she purged the contempt by refunding $1,000 in 

attorney fees to Phillips. 

{¶ 11} Phillips filed a grievance with the Columbus Bar Association 

(“CBA”). The CBA requested that Bogdanski submit a response to the 

allegations in the grievance. Bogdanski missed the deadline to respond, but she 

later contacted the CBA, stating that she was unable to respond because a client 

had died and she had to go to the hospital for back problems. After being granted 

an extension of time, Bogdanski missed the next deadline, this time claiming that 

she had given her response to a friend to mail but the friend failed to mail it. She 
January Term, 2013 

5

missed a subsequent deadline because she forgot to drop off the response at the 

CBA. After the CBA finally received her response, it transferred the investigation 

to relator. 

{¶ 12} Relator also sent Bogdanski a letter requesting further information 

and documentation. Although Bogdanski told relator that she had responded to 

the letter, relator never received a written response. In addition, Bogdanski failed 

to appear for two depositions noticed by relator, even though she had earlier said 

that she was available and would appear for the second deposition. 

{¶ 13} Based on these findings of fact, we agree with the panel and board 

that Bogdanski’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide 

competent representation to a client), 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with 

reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3)3

 (requiring a lawyer to 

keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), 1.4(a)(4) 

(requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for 

information from the client), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing 

to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an 

investigation), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to 

cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). 

{¶ 14} Relator requested and the board recommends dismissal of the 

charge under Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the 

lawyer does not maintain professional liability insurance) because the record 

demonstrates that Bogdanski was covered by malpractice insurance at the time 

she represented Phillips. We adopt the board’s recommendation and hereby 

dismiss this charge. 

 

3. Relator charged Bogdanski with violating “Rule 1.4(a) (a lawyer shall keep the client 

reasonably informed about the status of the matter),” and the board found a violation of the same 

section of the rule. There are five subsections to Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a), and we find that relator’s 

and the board’s description of the charged misconduct specifically matches the misconduct 

described in Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), rather than Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a) generally. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

Count III—Amanda Leonard Matter 

{¶ 15} In October 2010, Amanda Leonard was considering filing for 

divorce and met with Bogdanski. Similar to her representation of Phillips, 

Bogdanski’s representation of Leonard was incompetent, neglectful, and 

prejudicial to her client’s interests, and Bogdanski continued her pattern of 

excuse-making. 

{¶ 16} Specifically, on May 24, 2011, Leonard, after communicating with 

Bogdanski for months about the possibility of a divorce, instructed her to file the 

divorce complaint. Leonard also informed Bogdanski that she intended to file for 

bankruptcy. Neither at that moment, nor at any other time during her 

representation of Leonard, did Bogdanski inform her client that if she filed 

bankruptcy while her divorce case was pending, the divorce case would be placed 

on an automatic stay pending the completion of the bankruptcy case. 

{¶ 17} Six days later, Leonard sent Bogdanski an e-mail repeating her 

wish to file the divorce complaint. On the following day, May 31, 2011, 

Bogdanski replied through e-mail, apologizing for not responding earlier and 

explaining that she was “actually in Pennsylvania” attending to her sick 

grandmother. Bogdanski was not “actually” in Pennsylvania at that time, 

however, because she appeared in court on behalf of Heather Phillips on that day 

in Union County, Ohio. 

{¶ 18} In August 2011, Bogdanski finally filed the divorce complaint, and 

because the divorce was uncontested, the court scheduled a final hearing for 

November. Despite the fact that Bogdanski e-mailed her client in the days 

preceding the scheduled hearing, she failed to appear in court. Bogdanski later 

said that she had missed the hearing because her car slid off the road in a rain 

storm and her cell phone had no signal. The court rescheduled the hearing for 

January 3, 2012, and, again, despite Bogdanski’s prior e-mail communications 
January Term, 2013 

7

with Leonard about the hearing, Bogdanski did not appear in court. At this point, 

Leonard proceeded with the hearing, acting pro se. 

{¶ 19} Bogdanski later made excuses for why she missed the second 

hearing and offered Leonard a refund of her attorney fees. She also told Leonard 

that she would appear at the next scheduled hearing. But Bogdanski failed to 

appear for the third hearing, and Leonard never received the promised refund. 

{¶ 20} Leonard’s divorce case was ultimately stayed because of her 

separate bankruptcy case, and, at the time of the board hearing below, Leonard’s 

uncontested divorce had not yet been completed. Leonard claims that she would 

not have filed for bankruptcy if she had known that it would stay her divorce 

proceeding. Finally, Bogdanski’s professional liability insurance lapsed in 

September 2011, but she never discussed insurance with Leonard or asked her to 

sign a “notice to client,” as required by Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c). 

{¶ 21} Based on these findings of fact, we agree with the panel and board 

that Bogdanski’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(b) (requiring a 

lawyer to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 

to make informed decisions regarding the representation), 1.4(c), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), 

and 8.4(h). 

Sanction 

{¶ 22} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 

several relevant factors, including the ethical duties violated, the actual injuries 

caused, the existence of any aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD 

Proc.Reg. 10(B), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. 

v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16; 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 

N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 

{¶ 23} We have already identified Bogdanski’s ethical breaches to her 

clients and the legal profession, as well as the injuries she caused to her clients. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

The board found only one mitigating factor—Bogdanski’s absence of a 

disciplinary record. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). However, the board 

acknowledged the testimony of Jonathan E. Coughlan, disciplinary counsel, who 

stated that Bogdanski had suggested to him that she suffered from mental-health 

issues. We also note that disciplinary counsel testified that Bogdanski told him 

that she had “issues about prior drug use.” 

{¶ 24} As to aggravating factors, the board found that Bogdanski 

displayed a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, 

committed multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, 

engaged in deceptive practices during the disciplinary process, refused to 

acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct, harmed her vulnerable clients, 

and refused to make restitution to Leonard. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), 

(c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i). We agree with the board’s findings regarding the 

relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. 

{¶ 25} For precedent, we have previously recognized that “an attorney’s 

neglect of legal matters and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary 

investigation warrant an indefinite suspension.” Disciplinary Counsel v. 

Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19; see also 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269, 2010-Ohio-136, 921 N.E.2d 

636, ¶ 10. “Moreover, when these infractions are coupled with dishonesty in any 

form, an indefinite suspension is all but guaranteed.” Disciplinary Counsel v. 

Golden, 97 Ohio St.3d 230, 2002-Ohio-5934, 778 N.E.2d 564, ¶ 23. Here, 

Bogdanski did not simply neglect her clients, she abandoned them. She also 

engaged in acts of dishonesty, and rather than acknowledging the wrongful nature 

of her conduct or cooperating in the ensuing disciplinary investigation, she instead 

chose to explain her misconduct with suspect excuses. 

{¶ 26} Accordingly, having reviewed the record and the aggravating and 

mitigating factors, and having considered the sanctions previously imposed for 
January Term, 2013 

9

comparable conduct, we adopt the board’s recommended sanction of an indefinite 

suspension, with conditions on reinstatement. Therefore, April Marie Bogdanski 

is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio. Prior to 

applying for reinstatement, Bogdanski must demonstrate that she has (1) refunded 

$945 in attorney fees to Leonard, (2) contacted the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 

Program (“OLAP”) or a health-care professional designated or approved by 

relator, completed a substance-abuse and mental-health evaluation, and complied 

with the recommendations of OLAP or the designated health-care professional, 

and (3) not committed any further misconduct during the period of suspension. 

Costs are taxed to Bogdanski. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, Chief 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

April M. Bogdanski, pro se. 

______________________