Headlines 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases | Public Information Home
Cleveland Attorney Suspended
2004-2144. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Jurczenko, 2005-Ohio-4101.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 04-014. Alexander Jurczenko, Attorney Registration No. 0030918, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with one year stayed on conditions.
Moyer, C.J., O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.
Resnick, J., dissents and would suspend respondent for six months, all stayed on conditions.
Opinion: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-Ohio-4101.pdf
The Supreme Court of Ohio has suspended the license of Cleveland attorney Alexander Jurczenko for two years, with the second year stayed on conditions, for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In a per curiam decision announced today, the Court adopted findings of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline that Jurczenko was guilty of professional misconduct in his dealings with two clients and in failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities investigating the complaints against him.
In one case, a small business paid Jurczenko a $2,000 fee advance and also gave him $835 to cover court costs to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy action. In a second case Jurczenko collected a $500 fee advance and $200 in court costs from an individual client seeking to file a Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy. In both cases, Jurczenko failed to make required filings with the bankruptcy court, evaded repeated inquiries by the clients about their cases, and did not account for or refund the clients' fees despite multiple requests to do so.
When the Cleveland and Cuyahoga County Bar Associations notified Jurczenko that the clients had filed formal grievances against him, Jurczenko failed to respond to repeated written and telephone inquiries, failed to file a timely answer in either case and failed to appear for a scheduled meeting with investigators after promising to do so.
In today's decision, the Supreme Court adopted the board of commissioners' findings that, in both clients' cases, Jurczenko violated the state disciplinary rules that prohibit neglect of an entrusted client legal matter, require an attorney to make prompt payment on request of monies owed to a client, and require an attorney without malpractice insurance to notify clients of that fact and obtain their written acknowledgement before undertaking representation. The Court also found in both cases that Jurczenko violated the state bar governance rule that requires attorneys to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
While the board of commissioners recommended a stayed six month suspension as the sanction for Jurczenko's misconduct, a majority of the Court voted to impose a two-year suspension, with the second year stayed on conditions. In explaining that decision, the majority held that (T)his case is about a complete failure to represent two clients. Having accepted their cases, respondent had a duty to communicate with these two clients to do that which was clearly agreed upon or to explain why it couldn't be done.' Respondent (Jurczenko) has also refused to refund or account for his legal fees, indicating his apparent disregard of his clients' interests and relator's investigative authority. For these reasons, an actual suspension of respondent's license is warranted.
The Court stayed the second year of Jurczenko's suspension on the conditions that he (1) refunds the legal fees paid to him by the two clients whose cases he neglected within 30 days of this order; (2) completes six hours of continuing legal education in law office management within 180 days; and (3) completes a one-year probation period during the stayed portion of his suspension, and allows a lawyer appointed by the Cuyahoga County Bar Association to monitor his practice during that period.
The majority opinion was adopted by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Maureen O'Connor, Terrence O'Donnell and Judith Ann Lanzinger. Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton entered a partial dissent that was joined by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer. Justice Stratton wrote that she agreed with the probationary conditions imposed in the majority opinion, but would stay the entire two year suspension. Justice Alice Robie Resnick entered a separate dissent, stating that she would impose a six-month license suspension with all six months stayed on conditions.
Contacts
Gary S. Fishman, 216.621.9181, for the
Cuyahoga County Bar Association.
Lester S. Potash, 216.771.8400, for Alexander Jurczenko.
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 released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."
• 65 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431 •