Submitted September 11, 2019
Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct of the
Supreme Court, No. 2018-043.
M. Johnson and Jordan D. Lebovitz; and Heather M. Zirke, Bar
Counsel, and Kari L. Burns, Assistant Bar Counsel, for
Mariotti, pro se.
1} Respondent, Mark Mariotti, of Cleveland, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0067608, was admitted to the
practice of law in Ohio in 1997. Mariotti's license to
practice law was suspended from December 5, 2003, through
March 18, 2004, for his failure to comply with
continuing-legal-education ("CLE") requirements for
the 2001-2002 reporting period. In re Continuing Legal
Edn. Suspension of Mariotti, 100 Ohio St.3d 1516,
2003-Ohio-6494, 800 N.E.2d 34; In re
Reinstatement of Mariotti, 101 Ohio St.3d 1479,
2004-Ohio-1240, 805 N.E.2d 102. It was suspended again from
December 2, 2005, through January 10, 2006, for his failure
to register for the 2005-2007 attorney-registration biennium.
In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Mariotti,
107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671; In
re Reinstatement of Mariotti, 108 Ohio St.3d 1428,
2006-Ohio-378, 841 N.E.2d 790.
2} In a formal complaint certified to the Board of
Professional Conduct on August 31, 2018, relator, Cleveland
Metropolitan Bar Association, charged Mariotti with multiple
ethical violations arising from his representation of clients
in two separate cases-including the neglect of one
client's legal matter, failure to limit the scope of the
other client's representation, failure to reasonably
communicate with either client, and failure to deposit an
unearned fee into his client trust account-and his failure to
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.
3} Mariotti failed to timely answer relator's
complaint. His default was certified to this court, and on
December 3, 2018, we imposed an interim default suspension in
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(14)(B)(1). Cleveland Metro.
Bar Assn. v. Mariotti, 154 Ohio St.3d 1439,
2018-Ohio-4770, 112 N.E.3d 924. Three days later, Mariotti
filed a motion for leave to answer and for termination of the
interim default suspension. We granted Mariotti's motion
and remanded the matter to the board for further proceedings.
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Mariotti, 154 Ohio
St.3d 1473, 2019-Ohio-118, 114 N.E.3d 1201. We reinstated
Mariotti to the practice of law on February 19, 2019-after he
filed an answer to relator's complaint. See 156
Ohio St.3d 1238, 2019-Ohio-579, 125 N.E.3d 965.
4} On remand, the parties entered into stipulations
of fact and misconduct. A panel of the board conducted a
hearing and issued a report finding that Mariotti committed
all but two of the alleged rule violations and recommending
that he be suspended from the practice of law for one year,
fully stayed on conditions. The board adopted the panel's
report and recommendation, and no objections have been filed.
5} We adopt the board's findings of misconduct
and agree that a one-year suspension, fully stayed on the
recommended conditions, is the appropriate sanction in this
I: The Borisenko Case
6} In early December 2016, Mariotti verbally agreed
to assist Sergey Borisenko in a commercial-eviction action
filed against Borisenko in the Parma Municipal Court. But
there was no clear agreement between Mariotti and Borisenko
regarding the scope of the representation or Mariotti's
compensation, and Mariotti did not inform Borisenko that he
did not carry professional-liability insurance.
7} On December 30, the plaintiff in the eviction
action filed a motion for default judgment against Borisenko,
which was scheduled to be heard on January 31, 2017.
Borisenko sent portions of the motion to Mariotti by text,
but Mariotti did not enter an appearance in the case, file an
answer or other responsive pleading, or appear at the
hearing. In response to Borisenko's repeated text
messages asking whether ...