Disciplinary Counsel v. Zaremsky
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Zaremsky, 94 Ohio St.3d 17, 2001-Ohio-6978.] OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ZAREMSKY. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Zaremsky (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 17.] Attorneys at law Misconduct Six-month suspension with entire sanction stayed Commingling client funds with personal funds Failing to maintain complete records of all funds coming into lawyer s possession and render appropriate accounts thereof. (No. 01-1207 Submitted August 28, 2001 Decided December 19, 2001.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-84. __________________ Per Curiam. Respondent, Michael Lee Zaremsky of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0038372, did not have a client trust account in December 1997. On December 23, 1997, when he received a check for $9,500 representing insurance settlement proceeds due his client, Margaret O Sullivan, he deposited the funds in his business checking account and immediately wrote a check to O Sullivan for her share of the proceeds. After taking his fee, respondent was to disburse the remainder, $3,452.60, to medical providers. Respondent did not pay O Sullivan s medical bills until informed in July 1999 by relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, that Shaker Square Medical Clinic had filed a grievance against him for failure to make O Sullivan s payment. Over the next few months, respondent paid O Sullivan s three remaining medical bills. Relator filed a complaint on October 9, 2000, alleging that respondent s conduct violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent answered, and the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline ( board ). SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Based on stipulations and evidence at a hearing, the panel found the facts as set forth above and concluded that respondent s deposit of his client s funds in his personal account and his failure to pay the medical bills promptly violated DR 9-102(A) (a lawyer shall not commingle funds of a client with personal funds) and 9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds coming into the lawyer s possession and render appropriate accounts thereof). The panel noted that respondent had no previous disciplinary problems, that he was suffering from depression and sleep deprivation, and that he was embarrassed by and apologetic about his failure to pay O Sullivan s bills. The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months with the entire six months stayed. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. Having reviewed the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six months with the entire six months stayed. Costs are taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________ Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna M. Anelli, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Mary L. Cibella, for respondent. __________________ 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
