[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Yavorcik, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-123.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2020-O HIO -123
M AHONING C OUNTY B AR A SSOCIATION v . Y AVORCIK
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it

may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Yavorcik, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-123.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of th e Rules of Professional Conduct—Twoyear suspension with six months conditionally stayed. (No. 2019-1086—Submitted Septemb er 11, 2019—Decided January 21, 2020.)

O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professiona l Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2017-016.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Martin Edward Ya vorcik, of Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0070681, w as admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1999. On May 2, 2016, we suspended him from the practice of la w on an interim
basis after he was convicted of multiple felonies arising from his involvement in the corrupt activity surrounding Mahoning County’s purchase of Oakhill Renaissance Place and from related campaign-finance violations. See In reS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Yavorcik , 145 Ohio St.3d 1453, 2016-Ohio-2741, 49 N.E.3d 317. After hi s convictions were vacated on appeal, see State v. Yavorcik , 2018-Ohio-1824, 113 N.E.3d 100 (8th Dist.), we reinstated his license on January 10 , 2019, In re
Yavorcik , 156 Ohio St.3d 1212, 2019-Ohio-31, 124 N.E.3d 846. {¶ 2} In an October 31, 2018 second ame nded complaint, relator, Mahon ing County Bar Association, alleged that Yavorcik committed multipl e violations of
the Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his involvement in the Oakhill matter, his false statements and omissions regarding certain fi nancial contributions to his 2008 political campaign, and his neglect of a single cli ent matter around the
time of his own criminal trial. {¶ 3} The parties entered into stipul ations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors. Yavorcik admitted that he violated five professional-conduct ru les with respect to his campaign-finance reports and client representation, and relator moved t o dismiss the remaining alle gations. {¶ 4} A panel of the board conducted a hearing and issued a report fi nding
that Yavorcik committed the sti pulated misconduct and unanimous ly dismissing nine other alleged rule violati ons. The panel also recommended that Yavorcik be suspended from the practice of law for two years but that he re ceive 18 months of credit for the time he had served under his interim suspension and that the remaining six months be stayed on conditions. The board adopte d the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction. No objections
have been filed. {¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and agree that a tw oyear suspension, with credit for the 18 months he had served un der his interim suspension and the final six months stayed on the conditions re commended by the board, is the appropriate sanc tion for Yavorci k’s misconduct.January Term, 2020

3 Misconduct Campaign Contributions {¶ 6} Yavorcik was running as a candi date for Mahoning County prosecu tor in the 2008 general election when a political consultant recomm ended that they conduct a poll to evaluate Yavorci k’s chances of defeating the incumbent. On March 20, 2008, Yavorcik received a $15,000 check from Flora Ca faro and issued a receipt to “William M. Cafaro/American Gladiator Fitness Cent er” stating that the $15,000 payment was for services rendered from February 20, 2008, forward. He deposited that check into hi s business account and then issu ed a $15,000 check to Global Strategies Group to pay for the poll. {¶ 7} Yavorcik misrepresented the source of the $15,000 on the campai gnfinance report that he filed prior to the general election. Ra ther than state that Flora Cafaro—whose family was involved in the Oakhill controversy—had contributed the funds, he falsely reported that he had made an in-kind cont ribution of $15,000 to his campaign. Yavorcik also failed to report Cafaro’s payme nt as income on his
2008 federal tax return and to dis close two additional cash con tributions on the campaign-finance report that he filed after the general electio n. The Ohio Elections
Commission found that Yavorcik’s conduct violated campaign-fina nce-reporting laws and fined him $200. In 2014, Yavorcik amended his federal income-tax return and attempted to pay the tax on Cafaro’s payment, but the gover nment declined to assess tax on the payment due to the passage of time. {¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the board found that Yavorcik’s misrepresentation and omissions on his campaign-finance reports and income-tax return violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4( b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness). We adopt the board’s fi nding of misconduct.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 The Yambar Matter {¶ 9} Following an August 12, 2013 motor-vehicle accident, Robert E. Yambar retained Yavorcik to pursu e personal-injury claims on be half of himself and his minor son. Although Yambar agreed to settle his son’s claim for $10,000, he was unhappy with the offer of the other driver’s insurer to settle Yambar’s claim for his own injuries. Yavorcik filed a complaint against the o ther driver and his insurer one day before the app licable statute of limitations ex pired. {¶ 10} On September 3, 2015, the insurer issued a $10,000 check payabl e to Yambar, as parent and natur al guardian of his son, and Yavor cik deposited the
check into his client trust account at PNC Bank. Yavorcik prep ared an application to obtain probate-court approval of Yambar’s son’s settlement, but Yambar never signed it and Yavorcik never submitted it to the court. At som e point while Yavorcik was representing himself in his own criminal trial, he transferred Yambar’s file to another attorney. {¶ 11} On October 20, 2016, Yambar filed a grievance against Yavorcik. During the ensuing investigati on, Yavorcik informed relator’s i nvestigator that
PNC Bank had closed his client trust account without prior noti ce. After the account was closed, the bank had issued Yavorcik a check for $4 ,552.79—which
was less than the amount Yavorcik should have held in trust for Yambar’s son. On April 30, 2018, Yavorcik sent Yambar two cashiers’ checks total ing $10,931.28. {¶ 12} Yavorcik admitted, and the board found, that he failed to keep Yambar reasonably informed about t he status of his legal matter s and failed to comply as soon as practicable with Yambar’s reasonable requests for information, in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the s tatus of a matter) and 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for i nformation from a client). In accord with the parties’ stipulations, the board a lso found that Yavorcik failed to inform Yambar that he did not carry professional-liab ility insurance of atJanuary Term, 2020

5 least $100,000 per occurrence and $300,000 in the aggregate in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a la wyer to inform a client if t he lawyer does not maintain professional-liability insurance and to obtain a signe d acknowledgment of that notice from the client) and failed to hold Yambar’s son’s settlement funds in
his client trust account and to m aintain required records regar ding those funds in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) ( requiring a lawyer to hold f unds belonging to a client or third party in a client trust account separate from h is own property and to maintain certain records regard ing the funds held in that accou nt). We adopt these findings of misconduct.
Sanction {¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for atto rney misconduct, we consider al l relevant factors, including the e thical duties that the lawyer violated, the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. {¶ 14} The board found that just one aggravating factor is present: Ya vorcik committed multiple offenses. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4). But it also noted that Yavorcik had damaged the integr ity of and the public’s confiden ce in the election system by failing to identify an actual source of his campaign funds. {¶ 15} In mitigation, the board found that Yavorcik (1) had made a tim ely, good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of his misconduct by making complete restitution to Yambar almost a year before his disciplinary hea ring, (2) had made full and free disclosure to the board, had demonstrated a coope rative attitude toward the proceedings, and had been remorseful for his actions, and ( 3) had offered five letters attesting to his good character. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(3), (4), and (5). The board also found that other penalties or sanctions had been imposed in that the Ohio Elections Commission had fined Yavorcik for his campaign-f inance-reporting
violations and he had served a criminal sanction that included one year of house arrest, continuous alcohol and global-positioning-system (GPS) monitoring, andS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 200 hours of community service—though his convictions were late r vacated and related allegations of ethical misconduct had been dismissed by the panel in this

case. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(6). The board attributed no aggravating o r mitigating effect to Yavorcik’s related 32-month interim felony suspension—which remains on his disciplinary record. {¶ 16} Yavorcik made no effort to establish the existence of a mitigat ing substance-use disorder under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7). He did, h owever, testify that he used alcohol every night to cope with the stress of his criminal trial and that
until his convictions were vacate d, he was required to attend A lcoholics Anonymous meetings and was subject to random drug testing as co nditions of his community-control sanctions. Given that history, the board exp ressed concern about Yavorcik’s testimony that h e was continuing to use alcoho l approximately once a week—including the night before his disciplinary hearing

. {¶ 17} The board recommends that Yavor cik be suspended from the practice of law for two years with six months stayed but that t he time he has served under his interim felony suspensi on be credited against the fir st 18 months of that suspension. As conditions for the stay, the board recommends t hat we require
Yavorcik to submit to an assessmen t conducted by the Ohio Lawye rs Assistance Program (“OLAP”) or a qualified chemical-dependency professiona l, comply with any recommendations arising from that assessment, complete six hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) in law-office management, se rve one year of monitored probation, and engage in no further misconduct. {¶ 18} In support of that recommendation, the board cited several case s in which we imposed sanctions ranging from a fully stayed one-year suspension to a two-year suspension with six months conditionally stayed on att orneys who
committed some of the same ethical violations that Yavorcik did . For example, in
Columbus Bar Assn. v. McCord , 150 Ohio St.3d 81, 2016-Ohio-3298, 79 N.E.3d 503, we imposed a conditionally stayed one-year suspension on a n attorney whoJanuary Term, 2020

7 committed illegal acts that adversely reflected on his honesty or trustworthiness by failing to file federal income-tax returns for five years and w ho failed to inform his clients that he did not maintain professional-liability insuran ce. McCord also engaged in trust-account violati ons comparable to Yavorcik’s fa ilures to safeguard Yambar’s settlement funds and to maintain records regarding the funds held in his client trust account, but there w as no allegation that McCord f ailed to reasonably
communicate with a client as Yavorcik did. {¶ 19} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Ames , 147 Ohio St.3d 363, 2016-Ohio7830, 65 N.E.3d 754, the attorney admitted that he had misappro priated over $8,000
from his late brother’s estate— for which he had been convicted of felony theft— and had filed a proba te-court document in which he falsely repr esented that he had
obtained his nieces’ consent to distribute additional funds to himself. Like Yavorcik, Ames admitted that his conduct adversely reflected on his honesty or trustworthiness, but he also admitted that it violated Prof.Con d.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishon esty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from eng aging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). Id . at ¶ 3. In the presence of multiple mitigating factors and just two aggravating factors, w e adopted the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement and suspended Ames for two year s with the final six months stayed on conditions, crediting him for the time he had served under a related interim felony suspension. {¶ 20} Although Yavorcik, McCord, and Ames each engaged in conduct that adversely reflected on thei r honesty or trustworthiness in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), Yavorcik’s c onduct is arguably the most eg regious of those
violations because his actions a lso served to undermine public confidence in the transparency of our election process by concealing an actual so urce of his campaign funds. But Yavorcik has already served a 32-month interim fel ony suspension based on felony convictions tha t were ultimately vacated on app eal. In recognitionS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

8 of that sanction, Yavorcik’s ac knowledgment of his wrongdoing, and his sincere remorse, we agree that a two-year suspension, with 18 months of credit for time served and the final six months stayed on the conditions recomm ended by the board, is the appropriat e sanction in this case. {¶ 21} Accordingly, Martin Edward Yavorcik is suspended from the practice of law for two years, and the time that Yavorcik has s erved under our May 2016 interim-felony-suspension or der shall be credited against the first 18 months of that suspension. The final six months of the suspension sha ll be stayed on the conditions that Yavorcik (1) s ubmit to an assessment conducted by OLAP or a qualified chemical-dependency pr ofessional within 90 days of ou r order and comply with any recommendations arising from that assessment, ( 2) successfully complete a one-year period of m onitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21) focused on his law-office practices, including the manage ment of his client trust account, his compliance w ith Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c), and his compliance with any recommendations arising from his OLAP/chemical-dependency e valuation, (3) complete six hours of CLE relat ed to client-trust-account and l aw-office management in addition to the re quirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and (4) engage in no
further misconduct. If Yavorci k fails to comply with a conditi on of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the final six months of t he two-year suspension.
Costs are taxed to Yavorcik. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________ David C. Comstock Jr. and Ronal d E. Slipski, Bar Counsel, for r elator. John B. Juhasz, for respondent.

_________________