[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                   OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BANCSI.
             [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension with six months of the
        suspension stayed—Continuing to practice law while license is under
        suspension.
      (No. 97-436—Submitted May 7, 1997—Decided September 24, 1997.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-50.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} On August 11, 1995, we suspended respondent, Joseph Bancsi of
Rocky River, Ohio, Attorney 

 from the practice of law
for his failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements during the
1992/1993 reporting period, and also imposed a $100 sanction fee for
noncompliance. Although respondent completed more than the twenty-four hours
of continuing legal education during that period, he failed to obtain the required
one-half hour of substance abuse education. The suspension was also imposed for
his failure to pay a court-ordered sanction of $100 for noncompliance during an
earlier period. On unrelated matters, we have previously reprimanded respondent.
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Bancsi (1995), 

, 

.
        {¶ 2} Our order suspending respondent required among other things that he
immediately cease the practice of law and notify all clients, opposing counsel, and
judges of his disqualification by certified mail. Because he had not informed the
Supreme Court of his change of address, respondent did not receive the order
suspending him until September 20, 1995.
        {¶ 3} Respondent paid the two outstanding monetary sanctions on
September 21, 1995, immediately applied to take the uncompleted substance-abuse
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




education on October 4, 1995, and on September 28, 1995 filed a motion to vacate
the order of suspension. Respondent filed a motion for reinstatement on October
5, 1995, and was reinstated to the practice of law on November 3, 1995. In re
Report of Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn., Bancsi, Respondent (1995), 

, 

.
       {¶ 4} On June 17, 1996, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint
charging respondent with the violation of several Disciplinary Rules for continuing
to practice law during the period he was under suspension. A panel of the Board
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”)
heard this matter on December 20, 1996.
       {¶ 5} The panel found that although respondent did not take on any new
clients after he discovered that he had been suspended, he did serve existing clients
on a limited basis between September 20 and October 27, 1995 to protect their
interests. Specifically, on September 28 and October 6, he appeared in pre-hearing
settlement conferences for one of his clients. On October 2, he filed an application
for an extension of time to file assignments of error on appeal for a second client,
and on October 31, he entered into a settlement agreement in that case. On October
11, he filed a pretrial statement for a third client, and on October 27, he filed a
notice of withdrawal in that case. On October 18, he appeared at a pretrial
conference for a fourth client and withdrew from the case on October 27. On
October 23, he signed a settlement agreement in a domestic relations case for a fifth
client. At the time of these actions, respondent alleges that he anticipated that his
reinstatement would take place within two weeks at the most.
       {¶ 6} After his suspension, but prior to receiving notice of it, respondent on
behalf of various clients filed notices of appeal on August 11, 1995, and September
5, 1995, entered an appearance in common pleas court on August 28, 1995, and
filed motions in another case in common pleas court on September 1, 1995.




                                         2
                                January Term, 1997




       {¶ 7} Although respondent was required by the order to notify clients,
opposing counsel, and judges of his suspension by certified mail, respondent
instead gave personal notice of the order by hand-delivering letters between
October 20 and October 27, 1995.
       {¶ 8} The panel concluded that respondent had willfully failed to comply
with an order of the Supreme Court and, by practicing law during the term of his
suspension, violated DR 3-101(B) (practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so
violates the regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction).       The panel
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year
with six months of the suspension stayed on the condition of good behavior. The
board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
                              __________________
       Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
       Niki Z. Schwartz and Michelle Heyer, for respondent.
                              __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 9} We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. An attorney who
continues to practice law while his license is under suspension violates DR 3-
101(B). Akron Bar Assn. v. Thorpe (1988), 

, 

.
As we said in Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury (1997), 

, 

, “The normal penalty for continuing to practice law while under
suspension is disbarment.”
       {¶ 10} However, in view of the specific facts of this case, including
respondent’s prompt attempt to cure the deficiency with respect to continuing legal
education which resulted in his suspension, his immediate payment of the
outstanding fines, the short duration of the suspension, and the recommendation of




                                        3
                           SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




the panel, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one
year with six months of the suspension stayed. Costs taxed to respondent.
                                                          Judgment accordingly.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                             __________________




                                        4