Trumbull County Bar Ass'n v. Yakubek
142 Ohio St. 3d 455
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Nancy Ellen Yakubek (admitted 1983) was charged after a Board probable-cause panel alleged she neglected and failed to reasonably communicate in four bankruptcy matters she agreed to handle between Jan 2010 and Jun 2012.
- Yakubek filed bankruptcy petitions for two clients (Ford, Huff) but failed to timely file proof of required financial-management course; Huff’s case was closed without discharge and Yakubek failed to protect her from foreclosure; both later obtained discharge by April 2013 with no adverse financial consequences from delay.
- Yakubek never filed petitions for two other clients (Stulgis, Goss), failed to return calls, and default judgments and unearned-fee retention resulted; she returned files/fees only after grievances were filed.
- Parties stipulated that Yakubek violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and multiple subsections of 1.4 (and the board found those violations); a Prof.Cond.R. 1.16 charge was dismissed for lack of proof.
- The parties jointly proposed a public reprimand; the panel and Board rejected that and recommended a one-year suspension, all stayed on conditions (one-year monitored probation, CLE on law-office/case-file management, no further misconduct).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yakubek violated duties of diligence and communication (Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4) | Relator: Yakubek neglected four client matters and failed to reasonably communicate, producing multiple rule violations | Yakubek: conceded facts but cited mitigation (cooperation, lack of prior discipline, personal hardships) | Court adopted stipulations and found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4 as charged |
| Appropriate sanction (public reprimand vs. stayed suspension) | Relator/board: misconduct across four matters and 15 rule violations warrant stronger sanction than a reprimand | Yakubek: parties had stipulated a public reprimand; emphasized mitigation and cooperation | Court imposed one-year suspension, all stayed on conditions (monitored probation, CLE, no further misconduct) |
| Weight of aggravating vs mitigating factors | Board: pattern/multiple-offense aggravation supports suspension | Yakubek: lack of prior record, no dishonest motive, reimbursement, cooperation, good reputation, and asserted personal hardships | Court acknowledged mitigation but emphasized multiple matters and pre-dating of some hardships; imposed stayed one-year suspension |
| Validity of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16 charge | Relator charged withdrawal rule violation | Yakubek: no evidence offered to support that charge | Charge dismissed for lack of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman, 128 Ohio St.3d 206 (one-year stayed suspension for neglect and poor communication)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Fonda, 138 Ohio St.3d 399 (one-year stayed suspension where lawyer neglected matters, failed to communicate, and delayed returning funds)
- Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brown, 124 Ohio St.3d 530 (one-year stayed suspension for neglect and communication failures)
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (factors to consider when imposing sanctions)