Disciplinary Counsel v. Shramek - 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

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Shramek, 98 Ohio St.3d 441, 2003-Ohio-1636.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SHRAMEK.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Shramek, 98 Ohio St.3d 441, 2003-Ohio-
1636.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension with six months of
suspension stayed on conditions -- Neglect of an entrusted legal matter
-- Prejudicing or damaging client during course of representation --
Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice --
Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law --
Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation.
(No. 2002-2180 -- Submitted February 12, 2003 -- Decided April 16, 2003.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-07.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} Respondent, William Shramek of Webster, New York, Attorney
Registration No. 0059936, represented a client in a products-liability case in
federal district court resulting from the client's loss of two fingers while operating
a decoiler. During his representation, respondent failed to timely file an expert
report, move for an extension of time to file an expert report, respond to the
defendant's motion to strike the expert or prevent him from testifying, or provide
evidentiary support for his brief in opposition to defendant's motion for summary
judgment. Because of respondent's conduct, the court granted defendant's motion
for summary judgment.
{¶2} Respondent informed the client about the court's judgment, but
respondent did not advise the client of the court's reasons for the judgment. In

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
November 1998, as a result of respondent's misconduct, the law firm he worked
for fired him.
{¶3} In January 2000, the client filed a legal malpractice action in
common pleas court against the law firm and respondent. In October 2000, the
case was settled, and the client received $85,000 from the firm's insurance carrier.
{¶4} In April and May 2001, relator Disciplinary Counsel sent
respondent two letters of inquiry. Respondent received the letters, but he did not
respond. In June 2001, relator sent a subpoena to respondent ordering his
appearance at a deposition. Respondent received the subpoena, but he did not
appear for the deposition.
{¶5} On February 4, 2002, relator filed a complaint charging respondent
with having violated several Disciplinary Rules and a Rule for the Government of
the Bar. The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") on the stipulations,
exhibits, and supplemental information submitted by the parties.
{¶6} The panel found the facts as stipulated and also agreed with the
stipulation that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in
conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3)
(neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging
client during the course of representation), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to
cooperate in disciplinary investigation).
{¶7} In mitigation, the panel noted that after respondent's initial failure
to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation, he fully cooperated with relator.
Furthermore, respondent had no previous disciplinary record, and he lacked a
dishonest or selfish motive. Finally, the panel found that respondent expressed
sincere remorse for his behavior and that the client had been made whole through
the malpractice settlement.
2

January Term, 2003
{¶8} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law in Ohio for one year, with six months of the suspension stayed,
provided that respondent refrain from any acts in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and that he pay the costs of the disciplinary
proceeding. The parties had recommended a comparable sanction. The board
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. The board
further recommended that the costs of the proceeding be taxed to respondent.
{¶9} We adopt the board's findings and conclusions. In determining the
appropriate sanction, we note that respondent violated duties to his clients, DR 6-
101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(3), the public, DR 1-102(A)(5), the legal system, DR 1-
102(A)(6), and the legal profession, Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). See, e.g., Disciplinary
Counsel v. Connors, 97 Ohio St.3d 479, 2002-Ohio-6722, 780 N.E.2d 567, ¶ 17.
And respondent's misconduct harmed his client by allowing an adverse judgment
to be entered against him in the products-liability case.
{¶10} Nevertheless, mitigating factors include respondent's lack of a
prior disciplinary record, his absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, and his
eventual full cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings. See BCGD Proc.Reg.
10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (d). In addition, the client ultimately received compensation
for respondent's misconduct through his malpractice suit.
{¶11} Based on the foregoing, the suspension and partial stay
recommended by the board are appropriate. Cf., e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v.
Farkas (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 419, 763 N.E.2d 1158, where we imposed a two-
year suspension with one year stayed on various conditions for attorney
misconduct that included violations of DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 6-
101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(3).
{¶12} We further note that in January 2002, we imposed a sanction of
$460 against respondent for noncompliance with the attorney continuing legal
education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X for the 1999-2000 reporting period. In
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
re Report of Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn. (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 1437, 1440,
761 N.E.2d 627.
{¶13} Therefore, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law
in Ohio for one year, with six months of the suspension stayed on the conditions
that respondent refrain from any acts in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, that respondent pay the costs of these disciplinary proceedings,
and that respondent pay the previously imposed sanction for his noncompliance
with Gov.Bar R. X. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG
STRATTON and O'CONNOR, JJ., concur.
__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

William Shramek, pro se.
__________________
4