Court Opinion

ID: 9942025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 14:08:43.369548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:35.988966
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as
Disciplinary Counsel v. Vick, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-557.]

                                        NOTICE
     This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
     advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
     promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 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.

                         SLIP OPINION NO. 2024-OHIO-557
                          DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. VICK.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
         may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Vick, Slip Opinion No.
                                    2024-Ohio-557.]
Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
        including neglecting client matters, failing to refund unearned legal fees,
        engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, engaging
        in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and
        knowingly failing to respond to demands for information in connection with
        a disciplinary matter—Permanent disbarment and restitution ordered.
    (No. 2022-0939—Submitted July 18, 2023—Decided February 20, 2024.)
   ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme
                                 Court, No. 2022-024.
                                 __________________
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 1} Respondent, Gary Allen Vick Jr., whose last known business address
was in Parma, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0071495, was admitted to the
practice of law in Ohio in 1999. We indefinitely suspended his license on July 27,
2022, based on findings that he had neglected six clients’ legal matters, failed to
reasonably communicate with those clients, failed to refund their unearned fees,
lied to one of them, and failed to cooperate in several of the ensuing disciplinary
investigations. Disciplinary Counsel v. Vick, 168 Ohio St.3d 683, 2022-Ohio-2541,
200 N.E.3d 1118.
       {¶ 2} On August 26, 2022, we imposed an additional interim suspension
based on Vick’s failure to respond to the three-count complaint filed by relator in
this case. See 2022-Ohio-2965.
       {¶ 3} In January 2023, we granted relator’s motion to remand this
proceeding to the Board of Professional Conduct to seek Vick’s permanent
disbarment. See Gov.Bar R. V(14)(D). In February 2023, relator filed his motion
for default disbarment supported by 37 sworn or certified exhibits, including the
affidavits of three of Vick’s former clients, counsel for one of those clients, an
assistant disciplinary counsel, and relator’s investigator. See Gov.Bar R. V(14)(F).
In the midst of those filings, we suspended Vick’s license on an interim basis for a
second time based on his conviction of a fifth-degree felony count of grand theft.
In re Vick, 170 Ohio St.3d 1260, 2023-Ohio-298, 211 N.E.3d 147. That conviction
stemmed from Vick’s theft of $19,000 in fees paid by six clients—including two
of the clients whose complaints have given rise to this case.
       {¶ 4} The board referred relator’s motion for permanent disbarment to an
attorney-commissioner for disposition in accordance with Gov.Bar R.
V(14)(F)(2)(a).    The commissioner recommended that Vick be permanently
disbarred based on findings that, among other things, Vick neglected three client
matters, failed to reasonably communicate with those clients, misappropriated the

                                         2
                               January Term, 2024

advanced fees of two of those clients, and failed to cooperate in the ensuing
disciplinary investigations. The board adopted the commissioner’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law and agreed that Vick should be permanently disbarred.
After thoroughly reviewing the record, we adopt the board’s findings of misconduct
and permanently disbar Vick from the practice of law in Ohio.
                                MISCONDUCT
             Counts 1 and 3—The Lupica and Campbell Matters
       {¶ 5} In October 2020, Vick agreed to represent Leah Lupica in a child-
support matter for a flat fee of $3,500. He did not ask her to sign a written fee
agreement. The following month, she met with Vick in her bank’s parking lot and
paid him the flat fee of $3,500. At that time, Vick briefly reviewed some paperwork
with Lupica and gave her copies of two affidavits—but he did not ask her to sign
them. Vick told Lupica that he would file paperwork on her behalf and that she
would get notice of her court date in the mail. Despite those representations, Vick
took no further action on Lupica’s behalf.
       {¶ 6} Lupica began texting Vick in mid-November 2020 to inquire about
the status of her case. Vick did not respond to her first two text messages. In
response to her third message, he replied that he was “[d]ealing with a family
emergency” and that he would “touch base” with her over the weekend. Lupica
waited a few days before she began to text Vick again. Vick waited almost a week
to respond. He stated that he would be in court the following morning and
suggested that they “chat tomorrow afternoon.” Although Lupica sent him no less
than nine additional text messages and requested a refund of her $3,500 fee, Vick
never contacted her again and never issued her a refund.
       {¶ 7} Reginald Campbell had a similar experience with Vick’s
representation of him in a criminal matter. In August 2021, Campbell was arrested
and then charged in the Shaker Heights Municipal Court with three offenses related
to driving under the influence of alcohol. He hired Vick to represent him and paid

                                         3
                                SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Vick $2,500, but Campbell did not sign a written fee agreement. After filing a
notice of appearance, Vick entered not-guilty pleas and waived speedy-trial rights
on Campbell’s behalf. Although Campbell asked Vick about obtaining driving
privileges in light of his job as a valet, Vick took no action on that request.
Campbell later applied for and obtained limited driving privileges without Vick’s
assistance.
        {¶ 8} Campbell called Vick numerous times to inquire about the status of
his case. Vick either failed to return those calls or, on the occasions that he spoke
to Campbell, he falsely stated that “the prosecutor keeps asking for a continuance,”
as the docket shows that Vick was the only one to request a continuance in
Campbell’s case. Vick did not consult with Campbell and took no further action
on his behalf. Consequently, Campbell obtained new counsel in November 2021.
As of February 1, 2023, Vick had not responded to requests from Campbell or his
new counsel for the return of Campbell’s file and unearned fee.
        {¶ 9} In response to a subpoena, PNC Bank produced records for Vick’s
business and joint checking accounts from October 2020 through November 2021.
Those records show that Vick deposited Lupica’s $3,500 cashier’s check and
Campbell’s electronic payment of $2,485 into his business checking account on
November 2, 2020, and August 23, 2021, respectively.1
        {¶ 10} The bank records demonstrate that Vick quickly misappropriated the
funds he received from Lupica and Campbell by paying for various personal
purchases directly from his business checking account and electronically
transferring funds to his personal checking account and two investment accounts.
The ending balance in Vick’s business checking account dropped to $746.11 on
November 30, 2020, and to just $88.87 on August 31, 2021, when on the latter date
it should have held $6,000 in unearned fees paid by Lupica and Campbell.

1. Campbell submitted a receipt from PayPal, an electronic-payment service, showing a $2,572.80
payment he made to Vick, and he averred that that amount also included a transaction fee.

                                              4
                                January Term, 2024

       {¶ 11} The board found by clear and convincing evidence that Vick’s
conduct in both the Lupica and Campbell matters violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3
(requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client),
1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status
of a matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with a
client’s reasonable requests for information), 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold the
funds of clients in an interest-bearing client trust account, separately from the
lawyer’s own funds), 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit into a client trust
account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance), 1.16(e) (requiring
a lawyer to promptly refund any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from
employment), and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The board also found that Vick’s
conduct in the Campbell matter violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer
to promptly deliver client papers and property as part of the termination of
representation). We adopt these findings of misconduct.
                          Count 2—The Rector Matter
       {¶ 12} In February 2016, Dan Rector was seriously injured in an automobile
accident in which his vehicle was rear-ended by another vehicle. A few days after
the accident, Rector retained Vick to pursue a civil action against the driver of the
other vehicle.
       {¶ 13} In August 2017, Vick filed a civil complaint on Rector’s behalf in
the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. With discovery deadlines and a
pretrial hearing approaching in February 2018, Vick filed a notice voluntarily
dismissing Rector’s complaint under Civ.R. 41(A). Vick refiled Rector’s case later
the same day. But he failed to comply with discovery requests in the refiled case
as demonstrated by the trial court’s granting of the defendant’s unopposed motion
to compel discovery and a subsequent motion to compel authorization for the
release of Rector’s medical records. Vick also failed to inform Rector that the court

                                          5
                                  SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

had ordered Rector to appear and be deposed—and neither Vick nor Rector
appeared for the scheduled deposition.
          {¶ 14} Vick did not tell Rector that the court granted the defendant’s
unopposed motion to dismiss the case in April 2019. Over the following months,
Vick occasionally responded to Rector’s numerous text messages, emails, and
phone calls seeking information about the status of his case, but he offered Rector
little more than empty promises to provide additional information and to fix the
matter.
          {¶ 15} In August 2019, Vick refiled Rector’s complaint for a second time.
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the complaint
should be dismissed on procedural grounds. Over Vick’s opposition, the court
granted the motion. Vick filed a notice of appeal and an appellate brief on Rector’s
behalf. He also participated in oral argument. In August 2021, on the day that the
court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, Rector sent Vick a text message
asking if they had lost the appeal. Vick did not respond. Rector later sent Vick a
letter terminating his representation and requesting a copy of the case file, but,
again, Vick did not respond.
          {¶ 16} The board found that Vick’s conduct in his representation of Rector
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult with
a client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished),
1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.16(d), 3.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from failing to make a
reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an
opposing party), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration of justice).2

2. Due to an apparent typographical error, the board’s report identified the charged violation of
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) as a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), though the board’s description of the rule
matches Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d).

                                                 6
                               January Term, 2024

               Failure to Cooperate in the Disciplinary Process
       {¶ 17} During the pendency of Vick’s prior disciplinary action in the fall of
2021, relator sent four letters of inquiry to Vick at the email address he had
registered with the Office of Attorney Services—two each for the Lupica and
Rector grievances. Vick did not respond to any of those letters. Consequently, in
January 2022, relator’s investigator personally served Vick with a subpoena duces
tecum ordering him to appear remotely for a deposition on February 10, 2022.
Enclosed with that subpoena were letters informing Vick that his deposition
appearance could be excused if he submitted complete responses to the Lupica and
Rector grievances before January 27, 2022. Vick did not respond to the grievances
or appear for his deposition. Around the time of his scheduled deposition, he also
failed to respond to two letters of inquiry regarding Campbell’s grievance.
       {¶ 18} On these facts, the board found that Vick’s conduct with respect to
the Lupica, Rector, and Campbell grievances violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b)
(prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to demands for information
in connection with a disciplinary matter). We adopt these findings of misconduct.
                        RECOMMENDED SANCTION
       {¶ 19} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions
imposed in similar cases.
       {¶ 20} No mitigating factors and six aggravating factors are present in this
case. As noted above, Vick has previously been disciplined for similar acts of
misconduct, including the neglect of six client matters, the failure to reasonably
communicate with those clients, the misappropriation of client funds, and the
failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation. See Gov.Bar R.
V(13)(B)(1); Vick, 168 Ohio St.3d 683, 2022-Ohio-2541, 200 N.E.3d 1118. A
significant part of Vick’s misconduct in the Lupica and Rector matters occurred

                                         7
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

contemporaneously with the misconduct at issue in his earlier disciplinary case. He
also failed to cooperate in the investigation of his alleged misconduct with respect
to Lupica and Rector and engaged in additional misconduct in the Campbell
matter—even as he stipulated to engaging in the same types of misconduct in his
earlier case. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(5).
       {¶ 21} The four remaining aggravating factors consist of Vick’s selfish
motive, his commission of multiple offenses, his failure to acknowledge the
wrongful nature of his misconduct, and his failure to make restitution to Lupica and
Campbell. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2), (4), (7), and (9).
       {¶ 22} As part of the sanction for his grand-theft conviction, Vick has been
ordered to pay restitution of $3,500 to Lupica and $3,000 to Campbell. Therefore,
the board recommended that no additional order of restitution was necessary with
respect to them. The board also found that the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection
is entitled to reimbursement of $5,000 for an award it made to another of Vick’s
former clients for a fee that Vick collected but did not earn.
       {¶ 23} “Taking retainers and failing to carry out contracts of employment
is tantamount to theft of the fee from the client.” Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver,
102 Ohio St.3d 264, 2004-Ohio-2683, 809 N.E.2d 1113, ¶ 16, citing Disciplinary
Counsel v. Sigall, 14 Ohio St.3d 15, 17, 470 N.E.2d 886 (1984). The presumptive
sanction for such acts of misappropriation is disbarment. Id., citing Disciplinary
Counsel v. France, 97 Ohio St.3d 240, 2002-Ohio-5945, 778 N.E.2d 573, ¶ 11.
       {¶ 24} In this case, Vick has also neglected three client matters, failed to
reasonably communicate with those clients, failed to comply with their requests for
information, made false statements to Campbell, and failed to return Campbell’s
file to him.   Vick’s misconduct in the Rector matter was prejudicial to the
administration of justice in that it deprived Rector of the opportunity to have his
legal claim decided on the merits. Vick’s complete failure to cooperate in the
resulting disciplinary proceedings has now culminated in the recommendation of

                                          8
                                 January Term, 2024

relator and the board that we impose the ultimate sanction of permanent disbarment
in this default proceeding.
        {¶ 25} In support of its recommendation that Vick be permanently disbarred
for his misconduct, the board cited two cases in which we imposed that sanction
for similar misconduct in default disciplinary proceedings: Cleveland Metro. Bar
Assn. v. Freeman, 128 Ohio St.3d 421, 2011-Ohio-1483, 945 N.E.2d 1034, and
Disciplinary Counsel v. Henry, 127 Ohio St.3d 398, 2010-Ohio-6206, 939 N.E.2d
1255.
        {¶ 26} Freeman committed multiple ethical violations in his handling of
eight separate client matters. Freeman at ¶ 2, 22. Like Vick, he neglected his
clients’ legal matters, failed to reasonably communicate with his clients and to
comply with their reasonable requests for information regarding their cases,
misappropriated client funds, made false statements to clients, and failed to
cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigations. Id. at ¶ 22. In addition,
Freeman failed to attend scheduled court appearances and made false statements to
relator’s investigator. Id. Many of the aggravating factors present in this case were
also present in Freeman, but in contrast to Vick, Freeman had a clean disciplinary
record, id. at ¶ 23. Despite the presence of that lone mitigating factor, we
concluded that permanent disbarment was the only appropriate sanction for
Freeman’s misconduct. Id. at ¶ 25.
        {¶ 27} We permanently disbarred Henry for engaging in similar acts of
misconduct.     Henry neglected seven client legal matters, prejudicing the
administration of justice in six of those matters. Henry at ¶ 6, 9-10, 13, 15, 19, 24.
He failed to refund unearned fees to three clients, twice failed to return client papers
and property on the termination of his representation, and charged clearly excessive
fees. Id. at ¶ 10, 13, 19, 24. He also failed to keep one client reasonably informed
about the status of his legal matter. Id. at ¶ 15. Henry knowingly failed to respond
to relator’s multiple letters of inquiry regarding nine separate client grievances and

                                           9
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

relator’s additional efforts to communicate with him. Id. at ¶ 26-29. Aggravating
factors in Henry consisted of his failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process, his
refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his misconduct, the harm he caused
to vulnerable clients, and his failure to make restitution. Id. at ¶ 32. In contrast to
Vick, who has previously been disciplined for the same types of misconduct at issue
here, Henry had a clean disciplinary record, id.
       {¶ 28} As mentioned above, a significant part of Vick’s misconduct in this
case occurred contemporaneously with the misconduct at issue in his earlier
disciplinary case.    We have previously acknowledged that “[a]lthough each
disciplinary case is an independent action, ‘relatively contemporaneous ethical
infractions prosecuted separately do not necessarily justify a harsher sanction.’ ”
Disciplinary Counsel v. Ford, 167 Ohio St.3d 6, 2021-Ohio-3661, 188 N.E.3d
1018, ¶ 21, quoting Dayton Bar Assn. v. Scaccia, 143 Ohio St.3d 144, 2015-Ohio-
2487, 34 N.E.3d 919, ¶ 17. We therefore recognized that, “when appropriate, we
have imposed a suspension to run concurrently with a prior sanction if the
misconduct in both cases occurred over essentially the same time period.” Id.
       {¶ 29} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Ford, 159 Ohio St.3d 558, 2020-Ohio-
998, 152 N.E.3d 256, we indefinitely suspended an attorney in March 2020 for
misconduct that included dishonesty, failure to reasonably communicate with four
clients, failure to deposit unearned fees into a client trust account, misappropriation
of client funds, and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigations.
In September 2020, Ford was charged with engaging in similar misconduct with
respect to several additional client matters during the same approximate time period
as the offenses for which she had previously been disciplined. Ford, 167 Ohio
St.3d 6, 2021-Ohio-3661, 188 N.E.3d 1018, at ¶ 3, 19. Emphasizing that Ford’s
cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings after the realtor filed his second
complaint had resulted in a fully stipulated case, we imposed a second indefinite

                                          10
                                January Term, 2024

suspension and ordered that it run concurrently with Ford’s earlier indefinite
suspension. Id. at ¶ 3-4, 18, 22.
        {¶ 30} In contrast to Ford, Vick failed to cooperate in the investigation of
the misconduct at issue in this case, even as he stipulated to engaging in the same
types of misconduct in his earlier disciplinary case. His recalcitrance has continued
for well over a year after we indefinitely suspended him from the practice of law in
his earlier case, resulting in an interim default suspension and this uncontested
default-disbarment proceeding.
        {¶ 31} Based on the facts and precedent set forth above, and in the absence
of any mitigating evidence to support the imposition of a lesser sanction, we are
persuaded that the proper sanction for Vick’s misconduct is permanent disbarment.
                                    CONCLUSION
        {¶ 32} Accordingly, Gary Allen Vick Jr. is permanently disbarred from the
practice of law in Ohio and is ordered to make restitution of $5,000 to the Lawyers’
Fund for Client Protection for the claim awarded on December 2, 2022. Costs are
taxed to Vick.
                                                             Judgment accordingly.
        KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and DETERS,
JJ., concur.
        BRUNNER, J., not participating.
                               _________________
        Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kelli C. Murphy, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
                               _________________

                                          11