 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cincinnati Bar Association v. Komarek11/25/1998
[Cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Komarek (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law - Misconduct - Indefinite suspension with credit for time served under suspension for mental disability -Misappropriation of client funds - Neglect of entrusted legal matters - Failing to seek lawful objectives of client - Failing to carry out contract of employment - Prejudicing or damaging a client during course of professional relationship - Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation - Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation --Knowingly making a false statement of law or fact - Engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude - Failing to preserve funds of a client - Violating a Disciplinary Rule - Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law - Failing to refund fee paid in advance that has not been earned.
Submitted July 8, 1998
In May 1995, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a six-count complaint charging respondent, Paul Komarek of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0036795, with disciplinary violations dating back to 1992. On September 14, 1995, we suspended respondent for failure to respond to a subpoena and cooperate with relator in that investigation. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Komarek (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 1443, 654 N.E.2d 980.
Earlier, in August 1995, respondent filed an answer to relator's complaint stating, inter alia, that at all of the times mentioned in the complaint he was mentally ill. In November 1995, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") ordered that respondent be examined by Dr. Robert McDevitt about respondent's claim of mental illness. In January 1996, relator filed an amended complaint charging respondent with other disciplinary violations in five additional counts. Respondent in his answer to the amended complaint again stated that at all times mentioned in the amended complaint he was mentally ill.
After respondent put his mental illness in issue, the board received the report of McDevitt indicating that respondent suffered from bipolar II disorder that severely impaired respondent's "judgment and ability to deal constructively with his law practice, and indeed the needs of his clients."
On March 21, 1996, relator reported to the Clerk of the Supreme Court that respondent had complied with the subpoena and had met the conditions for reinstatement specified in the order of September 14, 1995. However, before we acted on this information, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for mental illness pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(7) on June 7, 1996.
On December 4, 1996, respondent applied for reinstatement pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(7)(F), attaching a letter from examining physicians indicating that there is no reason that respondent "should be excluded from practicing law at the present time." On March 28, 1997, a panel of the board ordered that respondent be reexamined by McDevitt. McDevitt reported in an April 1997 letter that respondent is "in remission from his mental illness and he should be able to resume his professional duties."
Based upon McDevitt's report, respondent moved for summary judgment, arguing that the cause for his suspension for mental illness having been removed and that reinstatement to the practice of law was appropriate. The motion was overruled, and the matters were set for hearing.
In a consolidated hearing on July 28, 1997, a panel of the board heard respondent's application for reinstatement as well as relator's amended complaint and respondent's answers. The panel found that respondent's mental illness was in a state of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|