[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




               CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BOYCHUK.
         [Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Boychuk, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Two-year suspension—Misappropriation of client
        funds and neglect of client interests.
       (No. 96-2808—Submitted March 19, 1997—Decided June 25, 1997.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-34.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} On April 15, 1996, the relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association,
filed a sixteen-count complaint against respondent, Patricia L. Boychuk of West
Palm Beach, Florida, Attorney 

 charging her with
violations of several Disciplinary Rules. On November 22, 1996, a panel of the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
(“board”) received the parties’ stipulation and heard additional evidence in
mitigation.
        {¶ 2} The panel found that during respondent’s practice of law in Parma,
Ohio, from November 1991 through January 1994, she received legal fees for work
that was not done and those fees were not refunded.
        {¶ 3} In March 1992, while corporate counsel for Wright Mortgage
Company (“Wright”), respondent represented Sandra Harris and Harriet Howard,
who were attempting to refinance their home through Wright in order to pay a
mortgage arrearage to TransOhio Bank, which was threatening foreclosure. When
TransOhio refused the attempted payment, respondent advised Harris and Howard
to pay Wright $1,875, and Wright would make a payment to stay the foreclosure.
However, TransOhio also rejected Wright’s attempted payment. Howard and
Harris then retained respondent to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. After
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




Harris and Howard agreed to a mortgage repayment program in the Chapter 13
case, they were unable to contact respondent. Eventually TransOhio obtained relief
from the bankruptcy stay and foreclosed on the property.
       {¶ 4} In February 1993, respondent advised John Lisko, who had credit
problems, to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition as the best way to implement the
purchase of a house. Lisko paid respondent a $150 retainer and agreed that the
$1,000 balance of her fee was to be paid through the Chapter 13 plan. When Lisko
found that the purchase of a house would require bankruptcy court approval, he
attempted to contact respondent, but her telephone was disconnected. Lisko was
required to hire a new counsel at a cost of $950 to complete the bankruptcy case
and correct respondent’s errors.
       {¶ 5} Brian Hatala retained respondent in April 1993 and paid her $175 of
a total $550 fee for the filing of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. When Hatala was
unable to confer with respondent, he asked her staff for a refund of the money he
had paid. The refund was refused. Shortly thereafter respondent discontinued her
practice of law and closed her office. Also in April 1993, respondent filed a Chapter
13 bankruptcy petition for Robert Shook. Shook discovered an error in the list of
creditors filed by respondent, and when respondent filed a second list of creditors
Shook found additional errors. When Shook attempted to contact respondent, he
found that her offices were closed and her phone disconnected.
       {¶ 6} In May 1993, Joseph Buza retained respondent for a fee of $350 to
represent him in filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Respondent filed the case,
and Buza gave respondent $530 to be deposited with the Chapter 13 trustee as his
first payment under the Chapter 13 plan. Buza discovered that the money was never
deposited, and his attempts to contact respondent were unsuccessful. Although
Buza had not agreed to pay additional legal fees, respondent, alleging that she had
not been paid any retainer, falsely filed a claim for $1,000 in unpaid fees and
received that amount from the Chapter 13 case.
                                January Term, 1997




       {¶ 7} In December 1993, Anthony and Constance Guyton retained
respondent and gave her $4,000 for the sole purpose of bringing their home
mortgage out of default. Respondent failed to use the funds for that purpose and
failed to return the funds. As a result, the Guytons retained another attorney and
filed a bankruptcy case. Also in 1993, Harvey Isom retained respondent and gave
her $1,000 to be used exclusively to bring his home mortgage payments up to date.
Respondent did not use the funds as instructed and did not return the money.
       {¶ 8} The panel concluded that respondent’s actions violated DR 1-
102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on her fitness to practice law), 2-110(A)(2)
and (3) (failure to properly withdraw from representation or to return unearned
funds of clients), 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of entrusted legal matters), 7-101(A)(2)
(failure to carry out contracts of employment), and, with respect to the Harris and
Howard matter, 5-105 (improperly accepting employment where her independent
judgment is likely to be affected by the representation of another client).
       {¶ 9} The panel also made findings with respect to several additional
charges against respondent that arose when a nonlawyer, Ron Dudas, took over her
practice. Dudas was respondent’s fiancé. In February 1994, Regina and Scott
Netherly, paying a retainer of $200, retained respondent’s law office to help them
consolidate their debts. The Netherlys did not deal with respondent but instead
dealt with Dudas, whom they believed to be an attorney. Dudas told the Netherlys
not to pay any further debts and that he would file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition
for them. For several months creditors repeatedly contacted the Netherlys, who
referred them to respondent’s office. Dudas or others at respondent’s office
continually gave the Netherlys excuses as to why the case had not proceeded
further. Finally, the Netherlys were unable to contact respondent or anyone at
respondent’s office.
       {¶ 10} In November 1991, Phoebe and Elliott Jones responded to a
newspaper advertisement by Crown Mortgage Company, which represented that




                                          3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




Crown could save a debtor from losing his home in a mortgage foreclosure. The
Joneses paid $1,000 jointly to Dudas, the president of Crown, and to respondent,
who had offices in the same suite, to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition for them
and pay some part of their mortgage arrearage. After the next meeting with Dudas
and the respondent, the Joneses were unable to contact respondent or Dudas, both
of whom had moved out of their offices. The Joneses eventually lost their home in
a foreclosure action.
       {¶ 11} In May 1993, after an initial interview with Dudas, who portrayed
himself as a lawyer, Darlene Sanders retained respondent’s firm to represent her in
a pending Chapter 13 bankruptcy case.            Sanders gave checks payable to
respondent’s firm for $250 in legal fees and for $1,200 to be applied on her
mortgage. After she and Dudas made an appointment to meet with her mortgage
company, Sanders gave Dudas a check for $2,759 payable to respondent’s firm
which Dudas said would resolve the bankruptcy proceeding.            When Sanders
returned for her next appointment with Dudas, respondent’s office was closed. She
later learned that her checks had been cashed.
       {¶ 12} In August 1993, after she retained respondent to represent her in
filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, Shirley Schroeder met with Dudas and paid
respondent $1,000 for attorney fees and court costs. The case was filed, but
respondent failed to appear at any hearings and Schroeder was required to employ
another attorney. Also in August 1993, Klaudine Krug paid respondent a $350
retainer and agreed that respondent would receive the remaining $1,000 of her fee
from a Chapter 13 plan that respondent would file for Krug. Dudas told Krug he
would file a motion with respect to her maternity leave with the court, but failed to
do so. When Krug attempted to contact respondent, she found that the office was
closed and the telephone disconnected. Again in August 1993, Tony Bess retained
respondent for representation in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. Dudas handled the
matter. When the case was dismissed in February 1994, the court issued a refund
                               January Term, 1997




check for $2,525.27 that was to be used to pay one of Bess’s primary creditors.
Dudas instructed Bess to endorse the check, which he said would be forwarded to
the creditor.    However, the creditor never received payment and when Bess
attempted to contact Dudas, he found that respondent’s office was closed and the
telephone disconnected.
       {¶ 13} In September 1993, respondent received $500 from James
Danelishen to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Danelishen was counseled by
Dudas and later discovered that, without his knowledge or consent, respondent’s
office had entered into a reaffirmation agreement with one of his creditors.
Danelishen was unsuccessful in his attempts to contact respondent and was required
to engage another attorney.
       {¶ 14} Respondent admitted to not supervising her office properly, and the
panel concluded that with respect to these matters she violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 2-
110(A)(2) and (3), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and, with respect to the Joneses’
matter, 5-105.
       {¶ 15} The panel found in mitigation that respondent, an alcoholic, began
drinking in high school and became addicted to cocaine in 1984. Dudas supplied
cocaine to her and, as a result of Dudas’s treatment of her, she became a battered
woman. Beginning in 1992, Dudas took care of her office without respondent’s
being aware of what was happening.
       {¶ 16} After her arrest in Cuyahoga County in November 1994 for
assaulting an officer and carrying a concealed weapon and her subsequent release
on three years’ probation, respondent began treatment in Minnesota in January
1995 for alcohol and cocaine dependence. She was also diagnosed as suffering
from “battered woman’s syndrome” as a result of her relationship with Dudas.
Respondent completed the treatment and worked as a law clerk in Minnesota.
While in Minnesota, respondent filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, and on
February 22, 1996, her Chapter 13 plan was confirmed by the court. In April 1996,




                                        5
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




just prior to her move to Florida, respondent contacted the Ohio Lawyers Assistance
Program (“OLAP”), which directed her to Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.
(“FLA”). She entered into a contract with FLA in May 1996. The director of
OLAP, who has monitored respondent’s progress, wrote that respondent “is on a
strong sure path to recovery from substance abuse.” FLA reported that “her
compliance with [the] * * * terms of the contract have been excellent.”
       {¶ 17} Some of the claims against respondent are being paid in her Chapter
13 case. Seven claims, totaling $16,152.63, were pending against respondent in the
Clients’ Security Fund on September 24, 1996, and money is being directed there
as well. Some of respondent’s restitution payments are being made by her parents.
Dudas was imprisoned for theft of funds from respondent’s clients.
       {¶ 18} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for two years. It further recommended that attorney monitors in
both Ohio and Florida submit to the Supreme Court of Ohio on December 31 of
each of the two years following suspension, reports of a sponsor, and reports
relating to random urine tests as approved by OLAP, restitution, completion of the
probation conditions in Cuyahoga County, completion of the Chapter 13
bankruptcy plan, resolution of all monetary claims against respondent, regular
attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and total abstinence from all mind-
altering drugs, including alcohol. The board adopted the findings and conclusions
of the panel, but recommended only that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for two years.
                              __________________
       Blaise C. Guisto, Saul Eisen and Gregory F. Clifford, for relator.
       Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
                              __________________
       Per Curiam.
                                January Term, 1997




       {¶ 19} We have said on many occasions that the misappropriation of client
funds and the neglect of client interests normally warrant the severe sanction of
disbarment. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Sterner (1996), 

, 

, and cases cited therein. However, in imposing a sanction, we
consider not only the duty violated, but also the lawyer’s mental state, the actual
injury caused, and whether mitigating factors exist.        In this case, we note
respondent’s personal and emotional problems that existed at the time of these
infractions and the steps respondent has since taken to recover from her
involvement with alcohol and drugs. We also note that respondent began a timely,
good-faith effort to make restitution before disciplinary proceedings were
commenced. Therefore, we agree with the board’s recommendation and order that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years. Costs taxed to
respondent.
                                                             Judgment accordingly.
       DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.
       MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.
                              __________________
       LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.
       {¶ 20} I would suspend the respondent indefinitely. The lengthy course of
her disciplinary violation, her criminal convictions, and her abuse of cocaine
deserve a longer suspension and proof of long-term rehabilitation before
readmittance to the bar is merited. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
       MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
                              __________________




                                         7