Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. Pryatel
145 Ohio St. 3d 398
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Mark R. Pryatel (attorney since 1983) was indefinitely suspended on April 24, 2013, for prior serious misconduct including misappropriation of client funds and false statements.
- Relator (Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn.) charged Pryatel (May 2014) with practicing law while suspended and with dishonest conduct.
- Evidence showed Pryatel appeared for his client Richard Brazell at three separate court proceedings (June 3 probation-violation in Cleveland Municipal Court; June 5 arraignment in Rocky River Municipal Court; July 9 pretrial in Rocky River), speaking for Brazell, waiving rights, and entering pleas/answers.
- Pryatel denied representing Brazell after his suspension and gave deposition testimony claiming he had not appeared, had informed the client of his suspension, and was not paid; video/audio/testimony and payment evidence contradicted those statements.
- The Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a), 8.1(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d), and recommended permanent disbarment; the Supreme Court accepted the findings and imposed permanent disbarment, overruling Pryatel’s objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pryatel’s court appearances constituted the practice of law | Appearances, waivers, pleas, and speaking for client are representation and thus practice of law | Pryatel: conduct was not practicing law because he did not litigate, cross-examine, file documents, or otherwise perform advocacy; he told court client was pro se | Court: appearances (standing at bench, speaking, waiving rights, entering pleas) constitute practice of law; held misconduct under Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) |
| Whether Pryatel knowingly made false statements in disciplinary proceedings | Relator: deposition and testimony contained false material statements contradicted by recordings and witnesses | Pryatel: denied representation and claimed he had informed client/family of suspension and received no payment | Court: found Pryatel’s deposition statements contradicted by evidence; violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a) and 8.4(c) |
| Whether disciplinary process violated Pryatel’s due process (Brady) rights | Relator: disciplinary procedures complied with standards for attorney-discipline proceedings; no destruction/suppression shown | Pryatel: alleged suppression/loss of exculpatory evidence (unrecorded judge hearing) and Brady violation | Court: disciplinary due-process standards differ from criminal; Pryatel had notice, depositions, cross-examination, and hearing; no Brady violation established |
| Appropriate sanction for practicing while suspended and related misconduct | Relator: disbarment is presumptive for practicing while suspended, given prior serious misconduct and aggravating factors | Pryatel: sought lesser sanction, cited mitigating factors and analogous cases for reduced penalty | Court: disbarment affirmed as presumptive sanction here given prior suspension for serious misconduct, multiple aggravators, and lack of mitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 111 Ohio St.3d 444 (2006) (definition of practice of law includes representation before a court and actions on clients’ behalf)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford, 85 Ohio St.3d 111 (1999) (disclaimer that one is not an attorney does not insulate from unauthorized-practice finding)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Sabroff, 123 Ohio St.3d 182 (2009) (disbarment imposed for practicing while under felony suspension; continuing-to-practice normally warrants disbarment)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood, 74 Ohio St.3d 596 (1996) (disbarment where attorney appeared in court after suspension)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown, 143 Ohio St.3d 333 (2015) (reaffirming that disbarment is presumptive sanction for practicing while suspended)