Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Parobek - 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

LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. PAROBEK.
[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Parobek (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Failing to promptly pay or
deliver to client as requested by client funds, securities, or other property in
lawyer's possession which client is entitled to receive.
(No. 98-829 -- Submitted June 10, 1998 -- Decided September 30, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-98.

Respondent, James S. Parobek of Lorain, Ohio, Attorney Registration No.
0030742, represented Brad Cupek on a charge of driving while intoxicated and
was not paid his fee. Several years later, respondent represented Brad's mother,
Jane Cupek, executor of the estate of Ruth Eddy. In May 1996, Jane went to
respondent's office to close the estate. Respondent, who had taken no steps to
collect the fee he was owed by Brad Cupek because he believed that Brad had left
town, told Jane that in the estate were three shares of Ford Motor Company stock.
Respondent told her that the stock was listed in the names of the decedent and
Brad Cupek and that he intended to hold the shares until Brad came to
respondent's office to discuss the fee he owed in the DWI case. Jane wanted to
take the shares, and respondent gave them to her. However, when he gave her a
check for the estate proceeds, he deducted $550, the amount which he believed
that he was owed by Brad. Respondent further said that if he was in error, he
would immediately make an adjustment.

Jane reported respondent's actions to the relator, Lorain County Bar
Association. Relator contacted respondent about the Cupek grievance in late June
1996, and respondent replied in late August 1996 with a letter explaining the
matter.

On December 9, 1996, relator filed a complaint charging that respondent's
conduct violated DR 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly pay or deliver to the
client as requested by a client the funds, securities, or other properties in the
possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive). Respondent filed
an answer and at approximately the same time returned the $550 to Jane. The
matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board'), which concluded that respondent had
violated the Disciplinary Rule as charged. After receiving testimony that
respondent had not been charged with any other disciplinary violation in forty-five
years of practice, had an outstanding reputation for integrity, honesty, and
competence, and had a long and distinguished career of public service in Lorain
County, the panel recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand. The
board adopted the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________

Stephen P. Bond, for relator.

Craig Wright, for respondent.
__________________

Per Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of
the board. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to
respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

2