Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Dubyak
Citations: 92 Ohio St. 3d 18; 748 N.E.2d 26Docket: No. 00-2284
Court: Ohio Supreme Court; May 30, 2001; Ohio; State Supreme Court
In 1991, attorney Stuart Banks approached Joseph Dubyak, who was representing a plaintiff against Nationwide Insurance Company, and offered to provide inside settlement information in exchange for a kickback. Dubyak agreed and subsequently paid Banks a $15,000 kickback after settling the case based on the obtained information. Banks shared this kickback with Lawrence Seidita and Nationwide Claims Adjuster Walter D. Hartsock. In 1999, Banks contacted Dubyak again, offering similar inside information while cooperating with law enforcement and wearing a wiretap. This led to Dubyak being charged with mail fraud for conspiracy to defraud Nationwide, resulting in a guilty plea to violating Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 371. He was sentenced to four months in prison, two years of probation, 150 hours of community service, a $100 assessment, and a $15,000 fine. Following his felony conviction, Dubyak was suspended from practicing law on May 31, 2000. On August 7, 2000, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint alleging Dubyak's conduct violated several disciplinary rules regarding illegal conduct, dishonesty, and actions prejudicial to justice. Dubyak acknowledged his discussions with Banks in 1991 but denied wrongdoing in the 1999 incident. A hearing conducted by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline concluded that Dubyak violated rules related to dishonesty and conduct reflecting poorly on his fitness as a lawyer. The panel noted Dubyak's cooperation with authorities, expressions of remorse, and positive character references in mitigation. It recommended a twelve-month suspension. The board adopted the panel's findings but increased the suspension to two years, with six months stayed and credit for time served since the interim suspension began on May 31, 2000. The final judgment imposed a two-year suspension of Dubyak's law practice, with the costs taxed to him.