The Ohio Supreme Court today took action to suspend the law licenses of three attorneys in separate decisions.

Mishandled Domestic Relations Case
Joseph Bancsi of Avon Lake, charged with professional misconduct for mishandling a client’s attempt to have his monthly spousal support payment reduced, has been ordered to serve a two-year suspension, with 18 months stayed on conditions.

Bancsi filed his client’s motion in May 2009, and lawyers for his client’s ex-wife served him with interrogatories and a request to produce documents. He failed to respond to or inform his client about the request. Several months after the original filing, the ex-wife asked the court to dismiss the motion. Bancsi attempted to continue and stay the proceedings because he was scheduled to undergo bypass surgery, but the trial court overruled his request and granted the ex-wife’s motion. Due to a longer than expected recovery time for his health problems, it was several months before he filed a motion for relief from judgment that was later dismissed without prejudice. Despite assurances to the client that he would follow up, Bancsi never filed a new motion or returned his client’s phone calls. The client fired Bancsi, and a new lawyer was eventually able to reduce the monthly spousal support payments.

Because of Bancsi’s neglect, his client lost 12 months of possible credit for any spousal support reduction.

Because of Bancsi’s neglect, his client lost 12 months of possible credit for any spousal support reduction.

A three-member panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found that because of Bancsi’s neglect, his client lost 12 months of possible credit for any spousal support reduction. The panel also recognized that he was dealing with serious health problems during the case, but concluded that did not excuse him from meeting the needs of his client.

The Supreme Court, in a 7-0 per curiam decision, noted several factors when making the final determination against Bancsi. Mitigating factors included that he did not act with a dishonest or selfish motive and that he cooperated in the disciplinary process. Aggravating factors included his prior discipline history. Bancsi’s two-year suspension with 18-months stayed is on the condition that he pays the cost of the proceedings and engages in no further misconduct. The court has also ordered him to serve two years monitored probation that will start once he is reinstated.

2014-0192. Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Bancsi, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5255.

Medina County Attorney Previously Suspended Twice
Steven R. Malynn of Medina had already been suspended two times by the Ohio Supreme Court: in 2011 for failing to register and in 2012 for neglecting multiple client matters. In fact, Malynn’s most recent suspension is still in effect because he has not applied for reinstatement. The justices were unanimous in their per curiam decision to indefinitely suspend him this time.

Malynn filed two complaints that were dismissed by the trial court due to his failure to respond to discovery requests, court orders, and various motions.

Malynn filed two complaints that were dismissed by the trial court due to his failure to respond to discovery requests, court orders, and various motions.

Malynn was hired in 2008 to file a breach of contract lawsuit. The clients paid him a $4,000 nonrefundable retainer, but Malynn failed to explain that under professional rules of conduct all or part of that retainer might be refunded if he did not complete his representation. Over a period of more than two years, Malynn filed two complaints that were each dismissed by the trial court due to his failure to respond to discovery requests, court orders, and various motions. The first time, the court dismissed without prejudice. The second time, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. In both instances, Malynn never sent his clients copies of the motions or orders, and he did not inform them of his failure to advance their case.

With Malynn’s prior discipline problems, a pattern of misconduct, and multiple offenses, the Supreme Court decision pointed out that this latest misconduct case came at a time “he was being investigated for substantially similar conduct” and that while he eventually refunded the $4,000 retainer, he did so “four years after it had been paid and only after the disciplinary investigation commenced.”

Malynn’s indefinite suspension is effective today. If he wants to be reinstated, he will have to provide proof from a qualified mental health professional that he is capable of returning to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.

2014-0543. Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Malynn, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5261.

Repeated Failure to Respond to Grievances
Attorney Jeffrey J. Wilcox of Wisconsin, whose Ohio license was already under suspension for previous conduct issues, will be suspended for another 12 months.

In the 6-1 per curiam decision, the justices take the latest step in sanctioning Wilcox for professional misconduct for repeatedly failing to respond to grievances filed against him.

“Wilcox failed to respond to [Disciplinary Counsel’s] inquiries regarding three separate grievances for approximately 18 months, and he spent portions of that time period in jail and treatment facilities,” the justices wrote.

Wilcox failed to respond to inquiries regarding three separate grievances for approximately 18 months.

Wilcox failed to respond to inquiries regarding three separate grievances for approximately 18 months.

Questioning Wilcox’s fitness to serve clients, the court suspended him from practice for one year. His reinstatement would be contingent on several actions on his part, including proof of participation in the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, proof of regular visits to mental health treatment, and a mental health professional’s opinion that he is fit to practice law. If he is reinstated, Wilcox would have to serve one year of monitored probation.

Joining the court’s majority were Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Terrence O’Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Sharon L. Kennedy, and Judith L. French.

Justice William M. O’Neill dissented and would have imposed an indefinite suspension.

2014-0546. Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilcox, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5264.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.