[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Zaremsky, 94 Ohio St.3d 17, 2001-Ohio-6978.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ZAREMSKY. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Zaremsky (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 17.] 

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire sanction 

stayed — Commingling client funds with personal funds — Failing to 

maintain complete records of all funds coming into lawyer’s possession 

and render appropriate accounts thereof. 

(No. 01-1207 — Submitted August 28, 2001 — Decided December 19, 2001.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-84. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. Respondent, Michael Lee Zaremsky of Cleveland, Ohio, 

Attorney Registration No. 0038372, did not have a client trust account in 

December 1997. On December 23, 1997, when he received a check for $9,500 

representing insurance settlement proceeds due his client, Margaret O’Sullivan, 

he deposited the funds in his business checking account and immediately wrote a 

check to O’Sullivan for her share of the proceeds. After taking his fee, 

respondent was to disburse the remainder, $3,452.60, to medical providers. 

 Respondent did not pay O’Sullivan’s medical bills until informed in July 

1999 by relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, that Shaker Square Medical 

Clinic had filed a grievance against him for failure to make O’Sullivan’s payment. 

Over the next few months, respondent paid O’Sullivan’s three remaining medical 

bills. 

 Relator filed a complaint on October 9, 2000, alleging that respondent’s 

conduct violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent answered, 

and the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 

Grievances and Discipline (“board”). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

 Based on stipulations and evidence at a hearing, the panel found the facts 

as set forth above and concluded that respondent’s deposit of his client’s funds in 

his personal account and his failure to pay the medical bills promptly violated DR 

9-102(A) (a lawyer shall not commingle funds of a client with personal funds) 

and 9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds coming 

into the lawyer’s possession and render appropriate accounts thereof). The panel 

noted that respondent had no previous disciplinary problems, that he was 

suffering from depression and sleep deprivation, and that he was embarrassed by 

and apologetic about his failure to pay O’Sullivan’s bills. The panel 

recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six 

months with the entire six months stayed. 

 The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 

panel. 

 Having reviewed the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice 

of law for six months with the entire six months stayed. Costs are taxed to 

respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 

LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna M. Anelli, 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

 Mary L. Cibella, for respondent. 

__________________