The Akron Legal News

High court suspends lawyer deemed 'threat'

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: August 30, 2016

The Ohio Supreme Court has granted a motion for interim remedial suspension of an attorney whom the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has deemed a threat to the public.

Akron attorney Mark Andrew Chuparkoff was suspended from the practice of law immediately based on evidence that he violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and “poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.”

According to the motion filed by the disciplinary counsel in July, Chuparkoff neglected multiple client cases and engaged in a pattern of deceit and dishonesty.

“Moreover, despite (an) ongoing investigation, (Chuparkoff’s) misconduct has continued unabated,” the motion states.

A memorandum in support of the counsel’s motion indicates that Chuparkoff was admitted to the practice of law in 2000 and has been practicing as a solo attorney.

The memorandum also states that Chuparkoff has 11 pending investigations against him, nine of which were initiated as a result of grievances filed by former clients or third parties. One was initiated after Huntington Bank informed the counsel that Chuparkoff’s Interest on Lawyers Trust Account, meant to store client funds, was overdrawn on three separate occasions and one case that was initiated after the disciplinary counsel reviewed court documents for a personal injury case that Chuparkoff handled.

“The first grievance was received in June 2005; however, additional grievances have been steadily arriving since that time, with the last three grievances being filed in the last three months and the overdrafts occurring in June and July 2016,” the memorandum states. “A review of these matters clearly indicates that respondent (Chuparkoff) has neglected multiple client matters and that he has engaged in a pattern of deceit and dishonesty with his clients, opposing counsel and relator (the disciplinary counsel.)

“Moreover, (Chuparkoff) has been less than cooperative with relator throughout the disciplinary investigations and he has refused to admit wrongdoing. Instead, he has told lie after lie in an attempt to conceal or justify his misconduct and he has failed to take any remedial actions to rectify the consequences of his misconduct.”

A summary of Chuparkoff’s misconduct states that he cashed more than $900 that was supposed to be deposited into a client trust account and then distributed to a litigation financing company. Despite being notified of his obligation to properly disburse the money, Chuparkoff has not paid and has ignored follow-up requests.

In another personal injury matter, Chuparkoff failed to pay a $3,600 lien to an insurance company and continually lied about the whereabouts of the cash.

In fact, almost every grievance filed against Chuparkoff involved the mishandling of client funds — either the failure to return them or blatant lies that he had used them for their intended purpose.

In many cases, Chuparkoff failed to do any actual work on behalf of his clients. His failure to respond to discovery requests resulted in the dismissal of a client’s case and, in 2015, Chuparkoff represented a client in a domestic violence case while under suspension.

The memorandum describes Chuparkoff’s habit of misleading clients into thinking that he was working on their cases and that it was the clients who were holding up the process. In reality, his approach was to collect retainers from clients and then cease work on the case.

During the course of the disciplinary counsel’s investigation, it subpoenaed bank records from his client trust account at Huntington Bank as well as a trust account he held with Fifth Third Bank.

“Not only did these records reveal that (Chuparkoff) had made false and misleading statements to opposing counsel and relator regarding the status of various payments, they also revealed that (he) used his IOLTA to pay personal and business expenses such as his malpractice insurance premium, his phone bill, his cable bill, his childcare expenses, his car repair bill and various purchases and services through PayPal,” the memorandum states. “On at least one occasion, (Chuparkoff) also deposited personal funds into his IOLTA that he had received from his parents.”

The money trail revealed severe misconduct in a Franklin County Court of Common Pleas case in which Chuparkoff made several false and misleading statements to the court and opposing counsel regarding the status of lien payments and showed that he failed to follow a direct order of the court.

The investigation also uncovered a large amount of personal financial problems including tax liens and credit card debt. Chuparkoff’s previous suspension was imposed for his failure to make child support payments.

“While relator is still in the process of investigating the depth of respondent’s personal financial problems, relator believes that they are directly correlated to respondent’s failure to provide his clients with accountings of their funds and his attempts to mislead his clients as to the status of their cases,” the memorandum states.

“Simply put,” the disciplinary counsel wrote, “respondent is unable to refund his client’s money due to his personal financial problems, therefore, he deceives them for as long as he can about the status of their case and/or attempts to make them think that he has put more work into the case than he actually has.”

The counsel also stated that an immediate remedial suspension was warranted because, due to the pending investigation and Chuparkoff’s continuing misconduct, it is not yet certain how many other clients Chuparkoff “is currently stringing along.”

“Along the same lines, (he) has completely failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation,” the counsel wrote, noting that Chuparkoff’s conduct in the investigation mirrors the conduct he displayed with his clients.

It also noted that, during the pendency of the investigation, the counsel has spoken to “several individuals” who have led it to believe that Chuparkoff may have “a problem with alcohol or gambling.”

Upon consideration of the disciplinary counsel’s motion and memorandum, the Supreme Court agreed that Chuparkoff should be subject to an immediate suspension, which took effect on Friday.

The decision from the state Supreme Court was unanimous.

The case is cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Chuparkoff, 2016-Ohio-5428.

[Back]