COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. BALALOSKI.
No. 2015-1002
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted July 7, 2015—Decided January 14, 2016.
145 Ohio St.3d 121, 2016-Ohio-86
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., and Christopher J. Weber, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Respondent, Daniel Karl Balaloski of Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0068122, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997. On December 15, 2014, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged Balaloski with professional misconduct arising out of six separate client matters. The charges against Balaloski included failing to provide competent representation, failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, failing to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their legal matters, failing to promptly deliver to a client funds the client was entitled to receive, and engaging in conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct considered the cause on the parties’ amended consent-to-discipline agreement. See
{¶ 3} In the amended consent-to-discipline agreement, Balaloski stipulates to the facts alleged in relator‘s complaint and agrees that his conduct constituted five violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), four violations of 1.4 (requiring a lawyer to reasonably communicate with a client), two violations of 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client), and one violation of 1.15(d)
{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that the applicable mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, Balaloski‘s acknowledgement that his actions were improper, his full and free disclosure to the board and his cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, and his good character and reputation. See
{¶ 5} The panel and the board found that the consent-to-discipline agreement conforms to
{¶ 6} In support of this recommendation, the panel referred to Toledo Bar Assn. v. Stewart, 135 Ohio St.3d 316, 2013-Ohio-795, 986 N.E.2d 947 (a two-year suspension from the practice of law, with the second year stayed on conditions, and a one-year period of monitored probation upon reinstatement was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who accepted retainers from clients and then failed to perform the contracted work, failed to reasonably communicate with the clients, failed to return client files and the unearned portion of their fees on termination of his representation, and failed to cooperate in several of the resulting disciplinary investigations), and Disciplinary Counsel v. Folwell, 129 Ohio St.3d 297, 2011-Ohio-3181, 951 N.E.2d 775 (a two-year suspension from the practice of law, with the second year stayed on conditions, and a one-year period of monitored probation upon reinstatement was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who engaged in a pattern of misconduct in seven separate client matters).
{¶ 7} We agree that Balaloski violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4—all on multiple occasions—as well as 1.15(d) and, as stated in the parties’ agreement and as indicated by the cited precedent, that this conduct warrants a two-year
{¶ 8} Accordingly, Daniel Karl Balaloski is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, with the second year stayed on the conditions that Balaloski (1) does not engage in any further misconduct, (2) provides proof, upon applying for reinstatement, that he has complied with any applicable OLAP requirements, and (3) upon reinstatement, serves a one-year term of monitored probation in accordance with
Judgment accordingly.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O‘NEILL, JJ., concur.