Disciplinary Counsel v. Nasrallah - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio
are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992,
pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas
J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel et al. v. Nasrallah.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nasrallah (1993), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Two-year suspension suspended
on conditions -- Neglecting an entrusted legal matter --
Failing to carry out an employment contract.
(No. 93-871 -- Submitted June 15, 1993 -- Decided
September 8, 1993.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 91-50.
In a complaint filed on December 10, 1991, and an amended
complaint filed on March 10, 1992, the Disciplinary Counsel and
the Dayton Bar Association, relators, charged respondent, Fuad
B. Nasrallah of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney Registration No.
0023893, with twenty violations of both DR 6-101(A)(3)
(neglecting an entrusted legal matter) and 7-101(A)(2) (failing
to carry out an employment contract).
The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances of the Supreme Court on February
26, 1993. In stipulations filed by the parties for
consideration by the panel, respondent admitted that he had
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) as to eighteen of the counts. Two of
the counts were withdrawn.
Respondent, originally from Lebanon, successfully practiced
immigration law in Dayton. He also opened a branch office in
Columbus. However, he encountered tax problems with the
Internal Revenue Service and alimony and child support problems
with his ex-wife.
Respondent decided to move his new wife and his mother to
Beirut, Lebanon, and then return to Dayton to confront his
problems. Consequently, without informing his business
associates or clients, he departed for Beirut on July 17, 1991.
Just after respondent's arrival in Beirut, he suffered
acute depression and nervous tension. His doctor prescribed
complete bed rest, silence, and removal from stress. Then on
August 9, approximately three weeks after respondent had left
the United States, the Dayton Daily News reported that
respondent had absconded and left people in the lurch in

Dayton. Respondent, who was still in Beirut, was devastated by
the story.
On August 14, respondent contracted typhoid fever and
received treatment for this disease until September 15. While
respondent was recovering from this fever, he was arrested by
machine gun-toting police after his ex-wife, who had followed
him to Beirut, filed a lawsuit for alimony and child support
arrearage. He was released after six hours in jail when he
established that he had, in fact, paid her the alimony and
child support amounts.
According to the stipulations, respondent agreed to
represent the eighteen clients who filed complaints with the
Disciplinary Counsel in various immigration actions. He
received retainers and fees for such representation.
Respondent, however, failed to complete these employment
agreements because of his absence. Furthermore, he failed to
arrange for these clients to be represented in his absence. As
respondent testified on cross-examination, his leaving without
any notice or alternative representation left his clients, who
evidently have genuine concerns about remaining in this
country, in difficult situations.
Nevertheless, through the efforts of the Disciplinary
Counsel, respondent's practice has been serviced by an attorney
from Cincinnati. Respondent is just now returning to his
practice in Dayton after having lived for a time with his wife
and their new child in Canada.
The parties submitted a "recommended sanction and
restitution" to the panel, stating that respondent should be
suspended from the practice of law for two years with the full
period of suspension stayed if respondent:
(1) makes restitution to each complainant in the amount set
forth in the stipulations, designated Joint Exhibit I, within
the first year of probation;
(2) makes full restitution to the Client's Security Fund
prior to the expiration of the two-year probationary period for
any and all other payments duly and properly paid from such
fund as the result of respondent's activities prior to the date
of the stipulations; and
(3) serves the remainder of the two-year suspension if he
fails to comply with the terms of probation as provided in the
stipulations.
The panel found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3)
and 7-101(A)(2), and adopted the recommended sanction and
restitution. The panel also recommended that Disciplinary
Counsel:
(1) supervise the term and conditions of probation;
(2) maintain the probation file;
(3) appoint, in any manner it considers appropriate, a
monitoring attorney who is admitted to the practice of law in
Ohio, in good standing, and not a member of a certified
grievance committee or counsel for the relator, and select a
replacement monitoring attorney, if necessary;
(4) receive reports from the monitoring attorney; and
(5) investigate reports of probation violations.
The board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the panel and recommended that respondent be suspended
for two years from the practice of law in Ohio with the full

period of suspension being stayed, provided respondent meets
the probationary conditions consistent with the panel's
findings and conclusions.

J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Diana L.
Chesley, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Leppla Associates and Gary J. Leppla, for respondent.

Per Curiam. We agree with the board's findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendation. Accordingly, we
suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years, with
the suspension stayed upon the conditions set forth in the
stipulations and recommended sanction and restitution, and upon
the further conditions recommended by the panel. Costs taxed
to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney
and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
Wright, J., dissents in part because he would suspend only
eighteen months of the two-year suspension.