CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. CICIRELLA.
No. 2012-0315
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted April 24, 2012—Decided September 25, 2012.
133 Ohio St.3d 448, 2012-Ohio-4300
{¶ 1} Respondent, Leonette F. Cicirella of Bedford, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0042219, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1989. In September 1999, we suspended her license for two years with one year of the suspension stayed on conditions and ordered her to make restitution of $1,000 based on findings that she had handled a client‘s legal matter without adequate preparation, neglected an entrusted legal matter, and failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary proceeding. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cicirella, 86 Ohio St.3d 544, 545, 715 N.E.2d 1131 (1999). Seven months later, we held her in contempt for failing to surrender her certificate of admission and attorney-registration card and for failing to file a timely affidavit of compliance with our suspension order. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cicirella, 88 Ohio St.3d 1463, 726 N.E.2d 1001 (2000).
{¶ 2} We indefinitely suspended Cicirella from the practice of law in January 2002 upon finding that she had neglected an entrusted legal matter; had failed to both maintain complete records of client funds coming into her possession and render appropriate accounts thereof; had failed to promptly deliver funds or property to which her client was entitled; had engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and conduct adversely reflecting on her fitness to practice law; and had failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cicirella, 94 Ohio St.3d 224, 225, 761 N.E.2d 1046 (2002). And on December 2, 2005, we imposed upon her an attorney-registration suspension. In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Cicirella, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671.
{¶ 3} On August 15, 2011, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, filed a complaint alleging that Cicirella had violated numerous Disciplinary Rules and Rules of Professional Conduct by practicing law while her license was under suspension and then failing to respond to relator‘s investigation of her client‘s
{¶ 4} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline granted relator‘s motion for default. Finding by clear and convincing evidence that Cicirella had committed most of the charged misconduct, the master commissioner recommended that she be permanently disbarred. The board adopted the master commissioner‘s findings of fact and misconduct as well as his recommended sanction of disbarment. We, in turn, adopt the board‘s report and permanently disbar Cicirella.
Misconduct
{¶ 5} The board found that although respondent‘s license to practice law in Ohio has been continuously suspended since September 8, 1999, Cicirella was retained by and drafted living trusts for Helen Hydash and her son, Gary, in 2005. Cicirella never advised Hydash that she had been suspended from the practice of law. In June 2010, following Gary‘s death, Hydash retained Cicirella to perform legal services, including the preparation of documents and other work necessary to change the ownership and beneficiary designations on her late son‘s investment accounts and to transfer the title of his vehicle.
{¶ 6} Cicirella received a $250 retainer but did not return Hydash‘s calls or complete her legal work. With the assistance of a family member, Hydash completed the tasks herself, but Cicirella did not refund Hydash‘s retainer or return her original documents.
{¶ 7} Hydash filed a grievance against Cicirella on October 19, 2010, and Cicirella spoke with relator‘s assistant counsel in January 2011. Cicirella acknowledged receiving a letter of inquiry and later left a voice-mail message advising relator that she would attempt to submit a response by January 24, 2011. Despite relator‘s efforts to communicate with Cicirella by telephone, as well as by regular and certified mail, Cicirella never submitted a response.
{¶ 8} Based upon these facts, the board found that Cicirella‘s conduct in 2005 violated
Sanction
{¶ 9} In imposing a sanction for attorney misconduct, we consider the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in
{¶ 10} The record does not contain evidence of any mitigating factors in this case. Aggravating factors, however, include Cicirella‘s prior disciplinary offenses, her dishonest or selfish motive, her multiple offenses, her failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process, her refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct, and the harm she caused a vulnerable client. Furthermore, she has failed to make restitution. See
{¶ 11} Relator recommended that Cicirella be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio and that she be ordered to pay restitution and return Hydash‘s file. The board agreed, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Frazier, 110 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-4481, 853 N.E.2d 295, ¶ 54, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Sabroff, 123 Ohio St.3d 182, 2009-Ohio-4205, 915 N.E.2d 307, ¶ 21, for the proposition that disbarment is the presumptive sanction for continuing to practice law while under suspension.
{¶ 12} We find that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Cicirella‘s misconduct because she not only continued to practice law while under suspension, but also took her client‘s money, failed to carry out the contract of employment, failed to return her client‘s money or records, and failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation.
Judgment accordingly.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, L.L.P., David W. Mellott, and Joseph N. Gross, for relator.