[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Novak, 112 Ohio St.3d 163, 2006-Ohio-6527.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. NOVAK. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Novak, 112 Ohio St.3d 163, 2006-Ohio-6527.] 

Attorneys – Misconduct – Engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, 

dishonesty, or misrepresentation – Conduct prejudicial to the 

administration of justice — Failure to disclose to client attorney’s failure 

to carry professional-liability insurance — Neglect of entrusted legal 

matter — Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation — Indefinite 

suspension with conditions. 

(No. 2006-1622 — Submitted October 17, 2006 — Decided December 27, 2006.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-011. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Lawrence John Novak of Lancaster, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0039794, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1988. 

On August 6, 2006, we suspended respondent’s license for two years, staying the 

second year on conditions, because he neglected multiple clients’ cases and also 

lied at times about his progress in those cases. Disciplinary Counsel v. Novak,

110 Ohio St.3d 134, 2006-Ohio-3823, 851 N.E.2d 498. That suspension remains 

in effect. 

{¶ 2} On February 13, 2006, relator charged respondent with additional 

acts of professional misconduct. Respondent was served with the complaint but 

did not answer, and relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). A 

master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 

and Discipline granted the motion, making findings of misconduct and a 

recommendation, which the board adopted. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

Misconduct 

{¶ 3} The second complaint against respondent alleged that he had 

neglected Rebecca M. Baird’s divorce and bankruptcy cases, misrepresented the 

work he had performed, and failed to advise her that he had no malpractice 

insurance. The complaint also charged that respondent had failed to respond to an 

investigation of the grievance Baird filed against him. 

{¶ 4} Baird retained respondent in April 2003 to pursue divorce 

proceedings. She paid respondent $660 and signed a retainer agreement 

providing that he would file Baird’s divorce case in Fairfield County Domestic 

Relations Court and thereafter perform “[t]rial work only” on Baird’s behalf. 

Respondent, a sole practitioner, did not advise Baird as required that he did not 

have malpractice insurance. 

{¶ 5} In completing a client information form, Baird also revealed to 

respondent that foreclosure proceedings on her home were imminent and that she 

might need to file for bankruptcy. Respondent promised to represent Baird in a 

bankruptcy, despite his lack of experience, after he consulted another attorney 

about those proceedings. In May 2003, Baird completed more paperwork and 

paid respondent $750 for his services in the bankruptcy case. 

{¶ 6} Respondent later filed Baird’s bankruptcy petition, but failed to 

include the required schedules of her debts and assets. He then ignored the 

court’s and Baird’s requests for him to supply this information. On at least one 

occasion, respondent told Baird that he had filed a document in bankruptcy court 

when he had not. Respondent never filed Baird’s divorce complaint. 

{¶ 7} Baird retained another attorney, who completed her bankruptcy in 

March 2004. In June 2005, Baird retained new counsel to assist her in obtaining a 

divorce. In the meantime, respondent promised to refund Baird’s attorney fees. 

As of the June 6, 2006 motion for default, respondent had repaid nothing. 
January Term, 2006 

3 

{¶ 8} The board found that in improperly representing Baird, respondent 

had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 

involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) 

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

administration of justice), 1-104 (requiring a lawyer to advise a client if the 

lawyer does not carry the required professional-liability insurance), and 6-

101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter). 

{¶ 9} Relator alleged and the board also found a violation of Gov.Bar R. 

V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). Baird 

filed her grievance around August 16, 2005, and relator immediately sent a 

certified letter of inquiry to respondent. Respondent received the letter on August 

18, 2005, but did not reply. Respondent received a certified second letter of 

inquiry on September 7, 2005, but did not reply. Respondent received a certified 

letter on September 21, 2005, notifying him of a panel probable-cause finding for 

issuing a formal complaint. Still, respondent did not reply. 

Recommended Sanction 

{¶ 10} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 

board weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors of his case. See Section 10 

of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings 

Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD 

Proc.Reg.”). 

{¶ 11} Of the specified aggravating factors favoring an enhanced 

sanction, the board found that respondent had a prior disciplinary record for 

neglect and dishonesty and had thereby engaged in a pattern of misconduct. See 

BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (b), and (c). Respondent also failed to 

appropriately participate in the disciplinary process, an aggravating factor under 

BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(e), and thus did not acknowledge his wrongful conduct. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g). In addition, respondent did not make 

restitution. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(i). 

{¶ 12} The board noted only one arguably mitigating factor. In 2003, the 

same year he agreed to represent Baird, respondent had been diagnosed with a 

mental disability. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Novak, 110 Ohio St.3d 134, 2006-

Ohio-3823, 851 N.E.2d 498, ¶ 21. This court determined that respondent suffered 

from major depression and that the condition had contributed to the misconduct 

committed in that case, which satisfies two of the conditions under BCGD 

Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g) for attributing mitigating effect. No similar evidence 

warranting lenience was offered in this case. 

{¶ 13} Relator recommended an indefinite suspension as the appropriate 

sanction. The board accepted this recommendation, consistent with the master 

commissioner’s report, because of respondent’s repeated ethical lapses and more 

recent failure to participate in the disciplinary process. The latter suggested that 

respondent may not be managing his mental condition. The board thus urged an 

indefinite suspension, which requires further review upon a petition for 

reinstatement, to protect the public and to ensure that an assessment of 

respondent’s fitness to practice is a condition of any attempt to regain his license. 

Review 

{¶ 14} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 

1-104, 6-101(A)(3), and Gov.Bar R.V(4)(G), as found by the board. Moreover, 

when a lawyer repeatedly accepts legal fees without performing the requested 

services, misrepresents the status of a case to his client, and then fails to cooperate 

in an ensuing disciplinary proceeding, the combination of misconduct warrants an 

indefinite suspension. Dayton Bar Assn. v. Fox, 108 Ohio St.3d 444, 2006-Ohio1328, 844 N.E.2d 346. Thus, we also agree that an indefinite suspension is 

appropriate. 
January Term, 2006 

5 

{¶ 15} Respondent is therefore indefinitely suspended from the practice of 

law in Ohio. Respondent may not petition for reinstatement pursuant to Gov.Bar 

R. V(10) for two years from the date of our order, and his petition must comply 

with that rule, including containing proof of mental fitness to practice and 

payment of $1,410 in restitution, with interest at the judgment rate, to Baird. 

Costs are taxed to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

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

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

______________________