Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 21

Summer, 2015 Volume 10, Issue 3

LCBAs 79th President, Andrea Kryszak, Takes Over


Hello! I am excited to be this year's president. For those of you who do not know me well, I
am originally from the Buffalo, NY area. I worked with the U.S. Immigration Service in the
Buffalo District before transferring to the Cleveland District in 1995. In 2000, I decided to take
the LSAT and 15 years later, here I am! Very happily, I might add! I am married and we live
in Henrietta Township with our rescued Doberman Pinscher, Curly.
I was told by an attorney long ago that one of their biggest regrets was not being more involved
with the bar association. I took this advice and became involved early on in my career. For me,
one of the most important aspects of involvement with our bar association are the relationships
we form with one another. The friendships we develop and knowing who to turn to with a
question or who to refer our clients to are so important.
I think Jeannie, Tammie and the social committee do a fabulous job of providing us with
opportunities to get to network. But, this year, I wanted to bring back Donut Day as an additional opportunity to get to know one another. We had our first Donut Day on Friday, July 31st,
and I am happy to report it was a success! I was able to meet a few attorneys I had never met
before and learned about a possible CLE idea that may be beneficial for many of us.
Hopefully this event will continue to grow. Please join us on the last Friday of each month, at 8:00 a.m., in the jury assembly room of
the Lorain County Courthouse. If your firm would like to sponsor a Donut Day, please call Jeannie or Tammie. I would love to meet you!
And, if any of you would like to meet me for coffee or lunch one day, I would love the opportunity to get to know you better.

LCBA Foundation Annual Softball Game


Thanks to the generosity of our fantastic sponsors, the LCBA Foundation hosted our third
annual softball game for our members and their
family and friends at All Pro Freight Stadium
(Lake Erie Crushers) on Thursday, August 27,
2015. This year the Foundation partnered with
the Karen Nakon Breast Cancer Foundation to
raise funds for women and their families in Ohio
who are burdened with the high cost of breast
cancer treatments. The LCBA Foundation
agreed to match up to $1,000 in donations.
The weather was perfect for an evening game.
We had 26 members play in the game. Team
Captains were Wayne Nicol and Anthony Rich.
(continued on following page)

The game ended in a tie and everyone that played had a fantastic time! Families and friends came to cheer on their favorite players and enjoy
some dinner. The younger audience was treated to face painting, balloon twisting, bubble blowing and Stomper even joined in on the fun.

A big THANK YOU to our sponsors for making this event possible:
RVM Enterprises, Inc. Nurenberg, Paris, Heller & McCarthy Waldheger, Coyne Cook & Nicol
The Karen P. Nakon Breast Cancer Foundation was established in 2003 by Karens husband Matt, family and friends, to honor her graceful and
courageous five-year battle against breast cancer. Karen was concerned about the lack of funding for research and some families inability to
endure the high cost of treatments. It was her wish, and therefore the mission, that a foundation be created to help these families in need.
Matt Nakon is the President and CEO of Wickens, Herzer, Panza, Cook and Batista, located in Avon and is the President of the
Karen P. Nakon Breast Cancer Foundation. The Nakon Foundation has awarded more than $800,000 in grants to over 600 breast cancer
survivors in Northeast Ohio to help them manage their finances during treatment and recovery.

Lorain County
Bar Association
Executive Committee
Andrea Kryszak, President Jennifer Riedthaler-Williams, Vice President
Dan Gibbons, Treasurer Andrew Young, Secretary
Kurt Anderson, Immediate Past President
Charlita Anderson-White Wayne Nicol Jessica Baggett Joseph Falbo
Lorain County Bar Association, 627 West Broad Street, Elyria, Ohio 44035
Phone 440-323-8416 Fax 440-323-1922 Email lcba@windstream.net Web www.loraincountybar.org

For Solo Practitioners and Small Firms


Sometimes the Best Office is No Office
Otto Beatty, III
Solo and small firm attorneys are often looking to keep their overhead down. One of the ways this can be accomplished is by working
primarily from home and utilizing the services and benefits of a virtual office facility. Virtual offices afford attorneys the ability to work
from anywhere they choose, while enabling them to establish a professional presence and a place to meet clients in a conveniently-accessible office atmosphere on a as-needed basis. The virtual office also serves as their professional address that can be marketed and a place
where they can receive their professional mail and have clients drop off documents.
Virtual office facilities are located in most of the Columbus commercial business districts - Dublin, Polaris, Downtown, Easton and New Albany.
Virtual Office vs Shared Office Arrangements?
A virtual office is different from an office sharing arrangement. Most virtual office facilities provide mailbox/address services and ondemand office space to businesses. Unlike a shared office facility or an executive suite, offices and conference rooms are rented by the
hour, half-day, or by the day; as opposed to monthly or annually. The attorney does not have a dedicated office or the fixed cost of one.
This is a cost-effective option if you only meet with clients in person a few times a month.
The "per use" or "pay-as-you-go" model of virtual office facilities is attractive because you only pay for office space when you're actually using it. The attorney only uses a virtual office when he or she is billing time or charging a fee, and the hourly rental cost for office
use bundle easily pays for itself. Even if a shared or single rental office only costs a few hundred dollars a month, it still may not pay
for itself every month. Finally, virtual office facilities have staff and other technological resources designed to support small businesses
and mobile professionals.
Virtual Office v. Traditional
Full-time office lease? For most solo practitioners, working from home and utilizing a virtual office is a better choice than entering into
a commercial office lease. Most landlords require a five-year commitment. Most virtual office facilities require a commitment of less
than a year, thereby providing the practice with more flexibility.
The financial investment and commitment involved in a traditional office far exceeds the lease. Utilities, office equipment, furniture,
phone service and Internet service are
just a few expenses that one has to
incur in establishing a traditional
office outside of their home.
Working primarily at home and
strategically using a virtual office
allows one to eliminate or avoid
duplicating these expenses.
Professional Image and Marketing
Many attorneys worry that not having
a full-time office will compromise
their image and be unattractive to
clients. In addition to the ethical concerns, most clients prefer to meet with
a lawyer in a private office or conference room in a professional environment. Most attorneys prefer not to
have clients meet at their personal
home. The virtual office addresses
both of the concerns of the clients and
attorneys.
(continued on following page)

Furthermore, a virtual office can enhance your personal image by allowing you to establish a professional presence in a prestigious location without paying pricey rent in those areas. While most lawyers are not required to have an office near the courthouse or in a particular neighborhood, certain addresses or areas may be more appealing to certain prospective and current clients. Many out-of-town firms
have used virtual offices to open a branch office. Other attorneys utilize virtual offices to have multiple offices throughout the area both
for meeting and marketing purpose. Depending on the location of the facility, the virtual address can also increase your law practice's
search engine ranking for those searching for lawyers online.
Many virtual office facilities are staffed, thereby allowing the practice to have a full-time front desk without a full-tine office. Attorneys
can have their clients drop off documents and payments to a reliable and professional person. When clients visit the office, they are greeted and offered refreshments, giving the same professional feel as a larger firm.
Most importantly, the attorney who minimizes his or her expenses by utilizing a virtual office can devote more resources towards other
marketing and technological solutions to maintain and grow his or her practice. Many attorneys utilizing virtual office space have asserted that their clients actually admire that their fees are not being invested in a fancy office and furniture.
In sum, many solo practitioners and small firms have found that a virtual office combined with a home office can be a cost-effective way
to reduce overhead expenses while maintaining a professional presence. This trend will continue to grow as more attorneys discover this
workplace innovation.
Attorney Otto Bailey, III, is the Managing Director of Intelligent Office.
Reprinted with permission from the Columbus Bar Association.

Introducing Spencer Ryan


Your Lorain County Bar Association's
Authorized Agent
Spencer Ryan is your Lorain County Bar Association's Authorized Agent for
Lawyers Malpractice Insurance. Before entering the insurance field, Spencer was
licensed and practiced law in Lorain County, making him uniquely qualified to
organize the complex coverage plans necessary in professional fields. For expert
guidance in creating your next malpractice insurance plan, call Spencer Ryan at
Ryan-St. Marie Insurance today. 440-322-3200 spencerryan@windstream.net
Visit us online at ryanstmarieinsurance.com Visit us on Facebook

Common Traits of Successful Negotiations of


Personal Injury Cases in Mediation
Gail Ignatz-Hoover, General Division Mediator

Lorain County Common Pleas Court

When mediation started in Lorain County in 1989, most practitioners had not used it. Now, most practitioners who work in a litigationbased practice use mediation as a regular case management tool.
Everything in mediation has a changing dynamic. The parties, the advocates, and the case itself all evolve. Attorneys can materially
influence each aspect of those changing dynamics, even those involving highly emotional situations or people, difficult opposing counsel, and extreme negotiations. Trying to touch upon all aspects that affect a mediation would result in a textbook rather than an article,
so this article will focus on a very narrow area within a specific type of case, negotiating a personal injury case. The most successful
negotiations of a personal injury case have the following common traits.
Sufficient Exchange of Information in a Timely Manner
Nothing is more important to the success of a negotiation than educated negotiators. As the old adage states, knowledge is power. The
more you know the case and understand the implications of its facts, the stronger you will be as a negotiator.
In a personal injury case, understanding the implications means understanding not only the injury, but also the context for that plaintiff.
That context includes the person's prior medical conditions and the effect the injury had on the person's ability to function, to enjoy life
and to earn a living. Defining the length of time the injury affected or will affect the person is also important. If the injury or its causation is unusual or complicated, provide a medical opinion letter to explain the nature of the injury and its relationship to the event.
Avoid unnecessary delays by relaying all relevant information to opposing counsel at least six weeks prior to the mediation.
If opposing counsel represents a client with insurance, timely delivery of the relevant information is especially important to allow for multiple levels of review. The attorney and adjuster will first analyze the case and make recommendations to the supervisor or committee. Then
that supervisor/committee will make a decision and relay the authority back to the adjuster. Late submissions result in delays. Submissions
on the day of the mediation are very ineffective, and unless minor, will likely result in adjourning the mediation to allow evaluation.
Provide whatever information your mediator requests several weeks prior to the mediation. That information may be a mediation statement, or expert opinion letters and an audit of expenses. Effective negotiators want the mediator to understand the case from their perspective. With that information, the mediator can ask questions that challenge the other side's view of the case. Failing to provide that
information may 'hide' important information that the mediator could use to explain your client's view to the other side.
Effective Presentation of the Case during the Common Discussion
Presentations that lack detail lead the other side to think that counsel is either unprepared or hiding significant problems by vagueness.
Focusing on essential facts with sufficient detail will convey not only the power of the case, but also your readiness to advocate for your
clients. The plaintiffs' presentations should include the diagnosis, treatment, recovery, and impact on their lives. A brief description of
your clients' work, family responsibilities and lifestyle helps establish the context. The context helps the opposing side see that the jury
will like and connect with your clients.
If your clients can effectively convey the facts of the case and the injury's impact on their lives, then have them do so. Again, the other
side will consider that party's ability to connect with the jury. At a minimum, your clients should present themselves as if they were walking into a jury trial. Neat appearances, polite interactions, and attentive behaviors will again affect how the opposing side thinks a jury
would respond to the person.
The common discussion allows the other side, especially the other client, to hear a cohesive summary of the case, including any legal
positions that might complicate the negotiation or trial. It allows your client to hear the case from the other side's perspective, an experience that is much safer in mediation rather than a trial. That presentation also provides the mediator the informational basis for questions asked later during private caucuses. Effective negotiators use the discussion to highlight the story already known to the mediator
and other side through the pre-mediation submissions. If the attorney failed to provide information to the mediator prior to the mediation, this presentation will be especially important, as it will be the only description the mediator will have of your clients' positions.
(continued on following page)

Preparation of Client and Frank Advice


Typically, the plaintiffs have never been in a lawsuit and have never been in mediation. Unfamiliar experiences, especially those in a
courthouse, are stressful. Spending time prior to the mediation explaining the issues and the mediation process helps your clients relax
and focus. Then, when your clients hear the issues in the mediation, the concepts are familiar to them. Also, their confidence in the attorney increases because that attorney accurately predicted the areas of concern.
The attorney should also explain the role of the mediator. In Lorain County, the facilitative mediation style is used and therefore, the
attorney can expect to do the analysis and provide the advice. If the mediator is an evaluative mediator, the attorney might want to warn
the clients that the mediator may disagree and express that disagreement.
During the private caucus, the mediator will ask the attorney to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the case and ask how the jury
might respond to particular evidence. The mediator may ask other questions to help the attorney define what evidence the jury will consider. If legal issues affect the case, the mediator will ask the attorney to assess the arguments presented regarding those issues. The
mediator will ask questions derived from the other side's opening remarks and ask the attorney to assess those issues.
The most effective negotiators provide a frank assessment of the issues. The clients usually understand and accept the realities of the
case and modify their case view to consider those issues. Typically, the clients are satisfied with their decisions after this discussion.
Attorneys who ignore or deny issues that are normally considered problems need to be confident that they can persuade the jury to accept
their view or be prepared to explain the outcome to unhappy clients.
Understanding the Value of the Case
The potential value range of the case in a jury trial drives the negotiation. No one reveals an acceptable number in the early phases of
the negotiation. Still attorneys read the stated, or 'public, numbers as clues to the clients' private goals. The public message of the
demands and offers should initially target their clients' most favorable edge of that range and then adjust as necessary within the range.
The other negotiating party sees an overly high demand as either inexperience or unreasonableness and typically responds with a small
offer, which then leads to an indignant response to the 'insulting' offer. Setting a very high demand does not seem to increase the settlement amount achieved. From the clients' perspectives, seeing the overly high demand cliff-dive into the jury range is very unsettling
and makes it harder for them to accept a jury-range number as an acceptable amount. On the flip side, very small offers that would yield
little to nothing to the plaintiff engender feelings of resentment and resolve that lead to jury trials.
Often the public message of the demand or offer is misread. If negotiators are not getting the response they anticipate, the other side
might be misreading their cues or may truly evaluate the case differently than they do. Adjusting the public message of the demand or
offer to provide a more 'readable' glimpse at the private goal may yield insight as to whether the negotiation rather than the case-view is
the problem. Other techniques can help resolve a negotiation, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this article.
Good Rapport between Attorneys
Respecting the people and their time as a normal business practice will yield the same courtesy back to you. Honoring your word and
taking reasonable positions will build trust.
Some advocates think that hard bargaining, aggressive or dismissive behavior will yield a better result. If anything, it seems to bring the
opposite. Although settlements do still often occur with difficult negotiators, it usually comes at the price of fatigue and frustration. Most
people do not care to have that type of experience day after day. They would prefer to negotiate respectfully on a reasoned basis to reach
an agreement within an acceptable zone of possible jury ranges. If attorneys have to push past their comfort zone to make a deal, they are
far more likely to make that push for someone who has built that trust and from whom they can expect a like courtesy when they need it.
Conclusion
Any negotiation involves a complex interplay of facts and law, emotions and personalities, risk and reward. To some extent, each aspect
can be influenced. The best negotiators understand as many of those aspects as possible. They influence those aspects they can, assess
the risk of those aspects they can't, and then negotiate accordingly.

Board Advises Judges Regarding Ethics Requirements


Governing Performance of Civil Marriages
Board of Professional Conduct

Ohio Supreme Court

Ohio judges who perform civil marriages may not ethically refuse to perform civil marriages involving same-sex couples while
continuing to perform marriages involving opposite-sex couples. Ohio judges may not ethically decline to perform all marriages
in order to avoid marrying same-sex couples based on their personal, moral, or religious beliefs. These conclusions are set forth in
an advisory opinion issued today by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Advisory Op. 2015-1 responds to two requests received by the Board last month, including one submitted on behalf of all Ohio
municipal and county court judges. The opinion requests were received following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell
v. Hodges that invalidated several state laws restricting or prohibiting same-sex marriages.
The advisory opinion states that a judge's decision regarding the performance of civil marriages must be made in a manner consistent with the judge's oath of office and six specific provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Advisory Op. 2015-1 quotes the statutory oath of office that obligates each judge to support the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions,
administer justice without respect to persons, and impartially perform all judicial duties. Specific provisions of the Code of Judicial
Conduct cited by the Board require a judge to comply with the law, act in a manner that promotes judicial independence, integrity,
and impartiality, perform duties fairly and impartially, perform judicial and administrative duties without bias or prejudice, and
avoid allowing external influences to affect the performance of judicial duties.
The opinion observes that a judge's reliance on personal beliefs as a basis for declining to perform some or all civil marriages may
require disqualification from cases in which the sexual orientation of the parties is at issue. Judges are further advised that personal, moral, or religious beliefs should not be a factor in the performance of administrative duties, including the supervision of
court personnel, and to be aware of the impact that a decision to decline to perform all civil marriages may have on the public's
perception of the judiciary.
Advisory Op. 2015-1 is 'a restatement of core tenets that have long governed judicial conduct and continue to guide the proper and
ethical performance of a judge's constitutional and statutory obligations. The opinion offers advice similar to that provided by
ethics authorities in four other states - Arizona, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania.
The advisory opinion does not answer the question of whether Ohio statutes authorizing the performance of civil marriages by
judges are mandatory or permissive. The Board's authority to issue advisory opinions extends only to providing interpretations of
rules and codes adopted by the Supreme Court that govern the professional conduct of lawyers and judges. As such, the Board is
not permitted to address questions of statutory construction or interpretation.
Advisory Opinions of the Board of Professional Conduct are nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions regarding the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, the Supreme Court Rules for
the Government of the Judiciary, the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Attorney's
Oath of Office.

DISABILITY INCOME
INSURANCE
Lorain County Bar Sponsored Plan Administered By:

Miller & Proffitt, Inc.


PO Box 3813
Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Phone 419-522-0622
7

Putting the Focus on Focus Groups


Ellen McCarthy
So your case is going to trial in two months. Questions loom in your mind about a couple of issues: how do I get the jury to place
a large part of the blame on one particular defendant or how do I lessen my client's conduct? Or you're considering taking a case
that will require significant time and money. Do the potential damages warrant the investment and is the opposing party's conduct
really that offensive? Or you learn of facts at the beginning of discovery and you have to decide how best to manage or exploit
them going forward. What do you make the centerpiece of your expert's testimony? Talking to others lawyers about these issues
is helpful but you get a lawyers' perspective 100% of the time. And your colleagues are never on your jury. Talking to a focus group
gives you a juror's perspective. And that's what you really want.
There are so many tools for lawyers to help try their case. Jury consultants, computer animations, courtroom technology, mock trials and focus groups. What's most important to your case? Where do you spend the money? Certainly the ability to tell a story visually is important but actually listening to a sample jury is invaluable. You are making a mistake not to focus group every case of
significance. Focus groups differ from mock trials in that there is no advocating for one side; no one is making a case for either
point of view. Focus groups originally developed to help marketers obtain feedback on a product. It's now used for feedback on
your case, clients, strategy and value. A focus group is as close to being in a jury room during deliberations as you will ever get.
It requires a group discussion about whatever issue is being tested and it lays out the good, the bad, the ugly and the really ugly.
Almost everyone loves being asked their opinion and they're usually not shy about giving it. The benefits of a focus group are substantial and there is no downside. None whatsoever.
A focus group, made up of no more than 10 people in a predetermined demographic, will help determine how a jury will react to
a certain set of facts. It is not necessarily only for value; it's a testing laboratory for your case and it can be done at any time, even
multiple times in the same case. Pre-suit, after paper discovery, before experts, well prior to trial. It depends on the complexity of
your case and the facts as they develop. And it really depends on the purpose. You have to define the purpose and create the structure. If the purpose is well defined, the process is simple. Here is what a focus group can do:
Identify a theme. Every jury consultant and experienced lawyer will tell you a theme is important, critically important, to your
case. Your case theme can have a major impact on the jury. It gives them a lens through which to view your evidence. If a jury
adopts your theme, they will look for evidence that supports the theme. It's a tagline and it's not always easy to find. "Fat, drunk
and stupid is no way to go through life" is a line from Animal House that everyone remembers. A focus group will help you find
that all important theme, that tagline for your case.
Test strategies. Why not test a couple of approaches to a problematic issue? Test your own arguments, test the defense strategies,
show them your exhibits. Ask if this an effective way to visually prove your point or show how the event happened. A focus group
may very well lead you to new strategies or at least improve on the strategy you have in mind.
Tailor your message. People live in a world of information overload. As a result, they have short attention spans. Advertisers claim
they shorten commercials now from 30 seconds to 15 seconds because studies show people will only allocate a limited amount of
time to a thought. The challenge is to grab their attention in the first few minutes. Focus groups help you structure your case, shore
up your message and develop a persuasive argument.
So how do you go about it putting together a focus
group? There are several places in this area that do
focus groups routinely for industry or new product roll
outs. They are experts at getting together a group of
people based on demographics or key attributes you
may seek. The cost is approximately $4,500.00 for a
half-day session with 10 participants. Give them a list
of qualifiers: age, sex, occupation, political affiliation,
prior jury service or former litigant. Certainly the participants should be what you will draw in a real jury
pool.Ten people is plenty - more than that and voices
get lost or you lose control of the room; fewer than that
limits conversation because there isn't enough diversity to
create energy or creativity. A moderator is necessary to
(continued on following page)

Adults & Adolescnts


Family & Marital
Alcoholism, Drug Addiction
Depression / Anxiety
Chemical Abuse & Codependency Eating Disorders
Individual & Group
Parenting
Daytime, Evening & Saturday Appointments

Stress / Burnout
Batterers Intervention Program
Gay / Lesbian Issures
Phobias
Psychological & School Testing

Outpatient Chemical Dependency Treatment Program - Including Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP)
Diana Santantonio, Ed. S. Psychologist & Associates
750 S. Abbe Rd. Elyria

440-323-5121

We Accept Insurance / ADC / Medicaid / Medicare

www.psychandpsych.com

guide the discussion. You can hire a professional but you can also do it yourself - you can act as a neutral person presenting the
story. The focus group will ask for additional information and no one knows your case better than you. If your moderator isn't
armed with all the facts and details, it slows down the process.
Focus groups are a great opportunity to practice voir dire. It's a sample jury. Treat it that way. Most lawyers dread voir dire. They
treat it as a necessary evil rather than a meaningful tool. Very little time goes into preparation for voir dire, which is a mistake.
Some people are naturally great at conversation and drawing people out. But they are generally game show hosts or comedians.
For the rest of us, practice and preparation for voir dire is essential. A focus group is the best way to improve your voir dire skills
and get comfortable talking to non-lawyers about your case. This will help you rid yourself of lawyer speak and speak the language of the jury. You can test your voir dire questions - figure out what questions no longer work - and learn what you have been
missing. This is the best place to formulate questions and learn or perfect the art of communication with a group of strangers.
Develop a questionnaire for the group to fill out before the focus group starts, using questions about their views on topics relevant
to your case. Ask them what three things come to mind when they think about lawyers or lawsuits, their views on medical negligence, motorcyclists, disability claims, employment relationships, all things that apply to your case. Get them thinking about the
things you will raise with a jury in the questionnaire. Videotape the focus group. You will have missed things, small comments or
asides that may turn out to be important in developing your tagline or altering your strategy. And keep the tape rolling during
breaks. They will talk about the case in small groups when they think you are not watching. The videotape maybe helpful at mediation or if you have a client that needs some reality.
When you begin the focus group, start off with your bad facts. Let them know all about it. You can't hind from them in a courtroom so there is no sense in doing it with a focus group. Hear what they have to say. Ask them outright if certain facts are fatal to
your case. Don't drop it on them towards the end of the focus group. They are already invested in your client by that point. The
defense will mention the bad things in opening, long before the jury has to chance to bond with your client. To get a realistic sense
of what a jury will do, roll out the facts as they would come out during trial. Ask about value and how they get to those numbers.
Why did they award money and for what specific reasons. What is the significance of certain numbers? Questions should be openended and move from the general to the specific. Ask what they want to know about certain aspects of your case that you haven't
focused on and why. Show them actual
evidence, video clips of depositions,
records, photos.
Example Number 1. A motorcyclist is
travelling on a two lane rural road with a
speed limit of 60. An SUV turns left in
front of him and he collides with the side
of the SUV. He survives but has multiple
orthopedic injuries and a traumatic brain
injury. He is 46 years old. He can walk
and talk but can't remember things, follow a conversation or make responsible
decisions. The defendant is claiming your
client could have avoided the collision
but was drunk, more than twice the legal
limit. How do you manage that fact? The
focus group on that case considered carefully the roadway, what the motorcyclist
should have been able to anticipate and
whether he was speeding - even though
there was no evidence of speed. They
drilled down on a lot of things like what
did he do with his time? How did he help
out his neighbors in this rural community? Where was he going and why? In the
end, their assessment of alcohol had very
little to do with the amount of their verdict. Alarmingly, a couple participants
believe they drive better drunk so they
(continued on following page)

didn't much care about the alcohol amount. They decided he was at best 15% at fault, several not apportioning any fault for the
drinking, but he was a good citizen and helpful to his neighbors. The average verdict was multiple millions. One participant awarded $77 million, $2.5 million just for miscellaneous costs that may occur during one's lifetime. This group gave insight into motorcycle prejudices, which were significant, drinking and getting on a motorcycle and the obligation to anticipate the other driver's
conduct. What mattered most was whether he was a good citizen, neighbor and a productive member of society.
Example Number 2. A sightseeing plane crashes, killing 5 passengers and the pilot. One passenger was a 4 year old child. The
flight was part of a fundraising event for a worldwide charity. The pilot was issued a medical certificate by an FAA certified physician who, during the exam, recognized the pilot had some visual impairment and referred the pilot to an ophthalmologist.
The ophthalmologist sent a written note to the doctor thanking him for the referral and confirming a diagnosis of macular degeneration, a condition that required the medical examiner report it to the FAA flight surgeon. A medical certificate should not have
been issued pursuant to the FAA Guidelines. The medical examiner continued to give medical certificates to the pilot for the next
10 years, while the condition progressively got worse. For 3 years prior to the fatal flight, the pilot was told by other eye doctors
to stop flying and driving. The charity was required to report the event to the local FAA office and provide information on the pilot
prior to the event. The charity failed to do so and failed to comply with its own internal safety standards for such events. The charity claims the flights were unrelated to the event, even though the event had been going on for 23 years and was the local club's
biggest fundraising event. As the plaintiffs, you have 3 bad actors, the pilot, the doctor and the charity, under whose "umbrella"
the pilot was flying. The pilot was uninsured, the doctor's carrier defended on a reservation of rights and worldwide charity is
entirely collectible. How do you get a jury focused on the collectible defendant, particularly when you have two co-defendants
whose conduct was nothing short of evil? The focus group talked a lot about corporations being responsible for franchise operations and that this worldwide charity is no different than Burger King. They focused on the safety requirements put in place by the
organization but didn't think much of the argument that the organization should supervise the local clubs when they found out there
were 34,000 local clubs worldwide. They backed away from the organization's responsibility when they learned how big the organization was. They could not get past the conduct of the pilot and the doctor, holding them both overwhelmingly responsible. They
believed the doctor should have gone to jail and that the pilot's family should have stopped him from flying. What was a surprise
during deliberations on value, almost all of them placed the highest value on the child. Their rationale was that each adult on the
plane had experienced the major milestones in life, learning to ride a bike, going to school for the first time, driving a car, graduating from school, getting married. This child had yet to experience life so she lost the most.
After the focus group concludes, write yourself a report on the outcome as if you are selling a produce to a customer. Identify the
good, the bad, the ugly and the really ugly about your case. Organize your report and use it for trial preparation. You will find out
that focus groups are mandatory in substantial cases. There is no downside and it's impossible not to learn something.
Ellen M. McCarthy is a partner at Nurenberg, Paris, Heller & McCarthy. With more than 20 years of experience as a trial lawyer, her
areas of practice include transportation accidents, medical malpractice, aviation accidents, and workers' compensation litigation.

Parenting

Family,

Sexual

Depression
Abuse
Eating Disorders
School Problems

Stress

Children,

/ Burnout
Gay / Lesbian
Batterers Intervention Program

Daytime, Evening & Saturday Appointments

Marital, Individual & Group


Adolescents & Adults
Alcoholism, Drugs & Codependency
Sexual Problems
Psychological & School Testing
Anxiety, Phobias & Panic

Diana Santantonio, Ed. S. - Psychologist & Associates

440-323-5121
750 S. Abbe Rd. Elyria
We Accept Insurance / Medicare / Some Medicaid

10

www.psychandpsych.com

Call Danielle M. Zechman or Brian Frederick at 440-984-7390.

11

Asset Transfers Allowed During Medicaid Application Process,


But Only Within Certain Limits
Kathleen Maloney
Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Federal and state Medicaid law allows an institutionalized spouse to transfer a home
or other assets to the spouse not in an institution, but only up to a specific amount, called the community spouse resource allowance
(CSRA). This type of transfer is permitted between the time of applying for Medicaid and notification of approval, Justice Sharon
L. Kennedy wrote in the court's majority opinion.
But any asset amount above the CSRA received by the community spouse must be available to the institutionalized spouse to use
for his or her care, the court explained in the 4-3 ruling.
The court noted, however, that the penalties calculated by the state against Marcella and Raymond Atkinson were based on the
wrong provision in federal law. The court returned the case to the trial court in Knox County to apply a different federal provision
and to adjust the penalty if needed.
Medicaid Reviews Couple's Assets
In 2000, the Atkinsons placed their home in a revocable trust and named themselves as trustees. Mrs. Atkinson moved into a longterm care facility on April 25, 2011, and Medicaid took a 'snapshot' of their financial assets that day as required in federal and state
law. The Atkinsons' house was counted as an asset for Medicaid determination because it was in the trust, not in either of their
names.
The house's value of $53,750 was incorporated into their total asset calculation of $98,320. The CSRA for Mr. Atkinson was determined to be $49,160, half of the total assets. He was not required to use those assets for his wife's care, but instead could keep the
amount to cover his needs.
(continued on following page)

12

In June 2011, the couple applied for Medicaid to assist with Mrs. Atkinson's care. On Aug. 8, they transferred the house to Mrs.
Atkinson, and the next day, she transferred it to her husband.
Medicaid Authorized, But Delayed for Moving House to Husband
The Knox County Department of Job and Family Services approved the Medicaid application in September 2011 with a CSRA for
Mr. Atkinson of $49,160. But the agency delayed the benefits until the following April, concluding that transferring the house to
Mr. Atkinson in August was improper because the house's $53,750 value was greater than his CSRA. The agency calculated a
penalty based on a federal Medicaid provision, which essentially treated the $53,750 as money for Mrs. Atkinson's care and
delayed providing Medicaid benefits until that amount would have been spent for the nursing home costs.
The Atkinsons appealed to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, but the state agency agreed with the county's determination. After Mrs. Atkinson's death, her estate appealed to the Knox County Common Pleas Court, which ruled in favor of the
state and county agencies. On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the common pleas court's decision.
Medicaid Background
In 1972, Congress amended the Medicaid program, which gives medical care to the poor through the states, to include assistance for
elderly people living in long-term care facilities. Medicaid recipients could not receive benefits unless they met a low-asset threshold, and the 1972 law permitted states to consider the community spouse's resources in deciding whether the amount was surpassed.
The provisions led couples to deplete their assets to qualify for Medicaid, and some people were almost financially ruined.
Meanwhile, well-to-do couples were able to title their assets to exhaust the institutionalized spouse's resources yet shield their
wealth from the Medicaid threshold.
Congress enacted the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act (MCCA) of 1988 to address these issues. The law allowed community
spouses to maintain some income and assets for their own needs. That amount is the CSRA. Ohio's Medicaid regulations reflect
the federal law's requirements.
Court's Analysis
Specific provisions in federal Medicaid law govern how the transfer of assets can affect Medicaid eligibility and set penalties for
improper transfers, including the penalty assessed to the Atkinsons.
In 1988, the MCCA added a section stating that [a]n institutionalized spouse may... transfer an amount equal to the community spouse
resource allowance..., but only to the extent the resources of the institutionalized spouse are transferred to (or for the sole benefit of)
the community spouse' and that the transfer must take place 'as soon as practicable after the date of the initial determination of
eligibility. The MCAA also included a clause declaring that its provisions superseded any other inconsistent sections in the law.
Because of this supersession clause, Justice Kennedy reasoned that the earlier provisions discussing asset transfers and penalties
do not apply to this case. Only the newer MCCA provisions are relevant to the spousal transfer of assets, she explained.
[W]e conclude that transfers between spouses are not unlimited after the snapshot date and before Medicaid eligibility, she wrote.
'Those transfers are proper only up to the amount that fully funds the CSRA.
'One clarification is needed, she noted. 'While the language of the [MCCA] statute appears to allow the institutional spouse to
transfer the entire amount of the CSRA to the community spouse regardless of the assets the community spouse already holds, the
statute in fact simply authorizes the institutionalized spouse to bring the community spouse's assets up to the CSRA level.
This interpretation is supported by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wisconsin Dept. of Health & Family Servs. v. Blumer
(2002), Justice Kennedy explained.
She added that the Atkinsons' transfer also was improper under Ohio's regulations, because any transfers greater than the CSRA
are only allowed by state law after a hearing, and the couple did not request a hearing.
Penalty Issue
Justice Kennedy pointed out, however, that the state imposed a penalty against the Atkinsons by delaying Mrs. Atkinson's benefits
based on the full value of the couple's home, even though Mr. Atkinson was allowed a CSRA of $49,160.
'Neither federal nor state law supports the agency's confiscation, after the CSRA has been set, of the entire amount of transferred
assets, some or all of which may have already been allocated to the community spouse on the snapshot date, she concluded.
(continued on following page)

13

Votes of the Court


The majority opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Terrence O'Donnell, and Judith L. French.
Justice William M. O'Neill dissented in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor and Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger.
Dissent's View
Justice ONeil countered that the 1988 MCCA provision addresses only transfers made after Medicaids initial decision about
eligibility, while this case involves transferring a house before Medicaid was approved. From his perspective, the MCCA law does
not supersede the other federal provision governing asset transfers before Medicaid approval because the two sections deal with
different time periods and are not in conflict.
'Under both federal and Ohio law, any transfer of the home from the institutionalized spouse to the community spouse before
Medicaid eligibility is determined does not affect the eligibility of the donor spouse, provided that the transfer is for the sole benefit of the receiving spouse, he wrote.
In addition, he noted that the house is 'explicitly excluded' under federal law when determining the CSRA. The state agency should
never have included the home's value when calculating the CSRA, he reasoned.
He further pointed out that the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services has repealed several rules applied in this case after a
2014 ruling in federal district court. Justice O'Neill finds it troubling that the Supreme Court has ordered the trial court to apply a
rule in this case that no longer exists.
'I would hold that the transfer of a home between spouses is not an improper transfer at any time prior to the granting of Medicaid
eligibility, period, he wrote. 'First, it is critical to note that there is explicit language in federal law and the Ohio Administrative Code
permitting transfer of the home between spouses. Second, the house is not a countable resource for purposes of computing the community-spouse resource allowance.... And third, the revocable-trust language in the federal CSRA law excludes the transfer of the
home from the definition of improper transfer. It is that simple. What this family did is and was permitted by state and federal law.
2013-1773. Estate of Atkinson v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1773.

14

Members in Class Action Must Show


They Suffered Injury for Case to Go Forward
Kathleen Maloney
The Supreme Court rejected the definition of which customers can sue in a class action contesting the language used by a
Cleveland auto dealership in its contracts.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in a class-action lawsuit in which customers who bought vehicles from a Cleveland car dealership
challenged a purchase contract clause requiring arbitration of disputes.
The Supreme Court reviewed the trial court's certification of the group suing and concluded that the class members did not all show
they were injured by, or suffered any damages from, the arbitration provision. While class members alleging violations of the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA) do not have to specify an amount of damages, they must establish that an injury occurred,
Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor explained in the 6-1 decision.
The ruling reverses the Eighth District Court of Appeals judgment, sets aside the order certifying the class, and returns the case to
the trial court to hold proceedings and apply the Supreme Court's guidance in the opinion.
Car Dealership Adjusts Financing Rate Twice
In March 2001, Jeffrey and Stacy Felix visited Ganley Chevrolet. They contend that the dealership offered financing at 0 percent
interest to encourage them to purchase a vehicle, and they decided to buy a 2000 Chevy Blazer.
The purchase contract stated it was 'not binding unless accepted by seller and credit is approved, if applicable, by financial institution' and included a clause requiring resolution of any dispute through binding arbitration. The arbitration provision was placed
after the heading 'Optional Equipment.
The Felixes went back to Ganley a few days later to sign paperwork, and they said the dealership informed them the financing
institution would approve only a higher 1.9 percent interest rate for the loan. The Felixes reluctantly accepted that rate. Then, more
than a month later, Ganley told them they had been declined at 1.9 percent, though they could get a 9 percent interest loan from a
bank. The Felixes rejected the offer.
Customers Seek Damages in Class Action
The Felixes subsequently filed two lawsuits in Cuyahoga County, both against Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., and Ganley Management
Company. The suits evolved into class actions.
The lawsuit in this case alleged that Ganley's arbitration clause was unconscionable, Ganley's practices related to the clause violated the OCSPA, and Ganley had committed unfair and deceptive consumer sales practices against the class. The customers
requested damages.
Ganley asked the trial court to stay both cases to allow arbitration, but the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Eighth
District agreed, concluding that the Ganley arbitration clause was unconscionable and returning the cases to the trial court. Because
the Ohio Supreme Court declined to review an appeal of the decision, the unconscionability of the arbitration clause is not an issue
in the current case.
Trial Court Approves Definition of Class
The case continued for years. The trial court then certified the class of consumers to be included in the lawsuit and decided that
Ganley's arbitration provision in its contracts violated the OCSPA. The court awarded $200 to each class member.
Ganley appealed to the Eighth District, which upheld the class certification and rejected the dealer's assertions that the class definition and timeframe were overbroad and ambiguous. The appeals court also concluded that the damages award was beyond its
scope of review.
The Ohio Supreme Court considered Ganley's appeal at an off-site court session held last September in Portage County.
Supreme Court Gives Guidance for Class Certification
The chief justice noted that trial courts must do a rigorous analysis when deciding whether to approve the definition of who is
included in a class action. The analysis often involves examining legal and factual issues related to the merits of the alleged claims,
she reasoned. However, when certifying a class, a trial court may look into a case's merits only to determine whether the class has
met legal rules for bringing a class action.
(continued on following page)

15

She also explained that the OSCPA at the time of this lawsuit limited the type of damages allowed to be awarded in a class action.
The plaintiffs in this case asked for three times the amount of actual damages or $200, whichever was greater, for each unlawful
act. However, while individuals can seek these types of damages for OSCPA violations, such damages are specifically prohibited
in OSCPA class actions, the chief justice added.
'Proof of actual damages is required before a court may properly certify a class action, she wrote. 'Although plaintiffs at the classcertification stage need not demonstrate through common evidence the precise amount of damages incurred by each class member,
they must adduce common evidence that shows all class members suffered some injury.
The fact of damage reflects the existence of an injury, as grounds for establishing that a party may be liable, while actual damages
involve a specific amount to compensate a plaintiff, she explained.
'Here, the class, as certified, fails because there is no showing that all class members suffered an injury in fact, she reasoned. 'The
broadly defined class encompasses consumers who purchased a vehicle at Ganley through a purchase contract that contained the
unconscionable arbitration provision. But there is absolutely no showing that all of the consumers who purchased vehicles through
a contract with the offensive arbitration provision were injured by it or suffered any damages.
'Although trial judges enjoy broad discretion in determining whether a class can be certified, that discretion is not unlimited,
particularly when, as here, the trial judge completely misconstrues the letter and spirit of the law, she concluded.
Votes of the Court
Chief Justice O'Connor's opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Terrence O'Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Sharon L.
Kennedy, and Judith L. French. Justice William M. O'Neill dissented.
Dissent: Customers Did Not Have to Prove Merits Up Front
In Justice O'Neill view, the majority has 'muddl[ed] court rules for certifying a class by requiring a showing of actual damages
and compelling trial courts to dig into a class action's merits before the case has begun.
'The majority elevates the preliminary inquiry into a full-blown examination of whether damages have been proved, he wrote.
'This is simply not required in a preliminary inquiry under Civ.R. 23(B)(3). In effect, the majority touches on the merits in order
to decide the merits at the class-certification phase. Under the rule announced today by the court, class-action plaintiffs will have
to prove their case before they are given the opportunity to prove their case.'Ganley... allegedly used unconscionable arbitration
terms in contracts with the putative-class members, he continued. 'The legal issue - whether use of an unconscionable arbitration
term is a violation of the OCSPA - is overwhelmingly and obviously common to the class members because every single class
member's claim would be won or lost on the answer to that question. Appellees did not fail to show a class for whom common
questions of law or fact predominate over any individual questions; every member of the class could lose on the question of damages at the same time.
Noting concern about the majority's blurring of how to establish a class action versus how to prove damages in an OSCPA class action,
Justice ONeill concluded that [c]lass certification is, and should remain, an issue distinct from the resolution of the merits.
2013-1746. Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-3430.

LCBA Welcome Reception


On Thursday, November 12, 2015, the LCBA will be hosting its annual Welcome Reception. This
reception is one of our signature events of the year because we welcome the newly-admitted lawyers
into the Lorain County legal community. Last year we had over 125 members attend this event. The
event is being held at the beautifully renovated Lorain County Transportation Center in Downtown
Elyria. We hope you can make it. Please rsvp to the LCBA at 440-323-8416 or lcba@windstream.net.
There is no cost for members to attend this event IF you rsvp on or before November 7th ($15 after
and $15 per member guest).

16

Rules Clarified for Lawyers Seeking Business


When Presenting Legal Seminars
Dan Trevas
Lawyers presenting legal seminars to prospective clients can make promotional brochures and information available, but cannot
personally distribute material or discuss individualized legal matters one-on-one with potential clients after the session, according
to an advisory opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct.
The board, formerly the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, issued Advisory Opinion 2015-2 last week regarding
questions about conducting legal seminars and the solicitation of clients, which is governed by Prof.Cond.R. 7.3(a).
The board was presented with three questions:
1. May a lawyer present a legal seminar to prospective clients and provide brochures and folders with firm information at the
entrance or exit of the seminar?
2. May a lawyer stay after a seminar to answer follow-up questions of attendees or meet with attendees who sign up to meet with
a lawyer in advance of the seminar?
3. May a lawyer, during the course of presenting at a firm-sponsored seminar, make an offer of services to attendees, all of whom
are employees of the existing organizational client of the firm? Does a 'prior professional relationship' exist in that situation?
Prof.Cond.R. 7.3 governs a lawyer's direct contact with prospective clients and prohibits in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic solicitation of clients, unless the contacted person is a lawyer, family member, close personal friend, or has a prior professional
relationship with the lawyer. The board said the rationale for the rule is to prevent the 'potential for abuse' of prospective clients who
are trying to evaluate all the information and alternatives when a lawyer is present and insisting upon being retained immediately.
The question about distributing brochures to prospective clients was previously addressed in prior advisory opinions. Opinion
2013-2 and Opinion 2007-5, but not in the context of legal seminars. Examining past opinions and practices of other states, the
board concluded that lawyers presenting seminars can leave information where attendees have the option to stop or simply walk
away. A lawyer may provide brochures at the entrance or exit, as long as the lawyer or anyone representing the lawyer does not
personally distribute information at the seminar.
Additionally, 'If an attendee approaches the presenting lawyer with a personalized legal question, then the lawyer should advise that
person to contact the office and make an appointment or seek legal counsel of his or her choice, the board said.
The board, however, noted two exceptions. The opinion does not apply to lawyers conducting seminars for other lawyers, since there
is not a serious potential of abuse. Lawyers can also answer personal legal questions if the seminar is provided as part of a pro bono
legal services presentation conducted by law school legal clinics, bar associations, legal aid organizations, or similar groups.
The 'prior professional relationship' standard allows a lawyer to make an in-person solicitation to clients with whom the lawyer
has worked with in the past. It does not apply to the employees of a business that is represented by the lawyer. Prof.Cond.R. 1.13
governs situations when lawyers represent an organization as a client. A lawyer may represent the organization and individual
employees of the organization, but those employees must be informed of the arrangement and the potential conflicts that could
arise. The board said the prior professional relationship exists only with the organization - not the employees of the organization
so when the employees attend a legal seminar, there is no prior professional relationship that allows for in-person solicitation.
Therefore, the lawyer must provide information in the same manner required for any prospective client who is not a relative, close
friend, lawyer, or who has a prior professional relationship.
Advisory Opinions of the Board of Professional Conduct are informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions regarding the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, the Supreme Court
Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, and the
Attorney's Oath of Office.

17

An Introduction to Lorain County Land Banking


Christopher Pyanowski
On May 24, 2012 Lorain County formed a county land reutilization corporation pursuant to R.C. 1724 and 5722. The Lorain
County Land Reutilization Corporation (LCLRC) has broad authority to accomplish its stated purposes of: facilitating the reclamation, rehabilitation and reutilization of vacant, abandoned, tax foreclosed or other real property within the county; efficiently
holding and managing vacant, abandoned or tax foreclosed real property pending its reutilization; assisting to clear title of vacant,
abandoned, tax foreclosed or other real property within the county; and promoting economic and housing development of the county
or region. It is important to note that this article is only intended to discuss county land reutilization corporations, as other types
of land reutilization corporations may have different authority and statutory requirements.
Since its creation, the LCLRC has primarily accomplished its purposes by working with local governments to demolish condemned
residential structures. More recently, the LCLRC has begun taking title to condemned and tax delinquent abandoned properties
with the intention of putting them back into productive use through demolition or rehabilitation.
Demolition as an agent of the municipality
Under R.C. 715.261, the LCLRC can enter into an agreement with a local municipality to abate nuisances as an agent of the municipality. In the beginning, the municipality is responsible for code enforcement and ensuring that due process has been provided.
Once that process is complete, the LCLRC is called upon to abate the nuisance either by demolishing the condemned structure or
by cutting the tall grass. Notably, the title to the property does not transfer under this scenario and, therefore, neither the municipality nor the LCLRC have an ongoing legal duty to maintain the property once the nuisance is abated. Pursuant to R.C. 715.261,
the LCLRC or the municipality has the authority to certify the costs of abating the nuisance to the Lorain County Auditor so that
the costs can be assessed against the property. In doing so, the assessments and any tax delinquencies of the property remain owed
by the property owner.
Taking title through the tax foreclosure process
The more recent approach that the LCLRC has taken has been to make a claim in the tax foreclosure cases filed by the Lorain
County Treasurer under the authority of R.C. 5722.03. Through this process, the LCLRC has the ability to acquire tax delinquent
properties in the event that they meet certain qualifications and fail to sell for the minimum bid at sheriff's sale. For nonproductive land, as defined by R.C. 5722.01(F), the property can be transferred to the LCLRC after being offered at two sheriff's sales if
the minimum bid is not received.
For abandoned land, as defined by R.C. 323.65, the property can be transferred to the LCLRC after being offered at one sheriff's
sale where the minimum bid is not received, or it can be directly transferred to the LCLRC after expiration of the alternative
redemption period. The alternative redemption period can be invoked by the Treasurer when abandoned land is foreclosed on. It
allows for direct transfer 28 days after the order of foreclosure, which is when the property owner's redemption period expires as
outlined in R.C. 323.78.
Under the tax foreclosure process, if the property is offered at sheriff's sale, the LCLRC acquires title to the property by court order
if no minimum bid is received. Essentially, the property transfers to the LCLRC instead of being forfeited to the State of Ohio. The
delinquent taxes and all other liens are extinguished and the costs of the tax foreclosure proceedings are charged to the taxing districts as outlined in R.C. 5722.03. While the property is held by the LCLRC, it remains tax exempt.
Accepting deeds in lieu of foreclosure
Another process through which the LCLRC has gained title to several properties is through the deed in lieu of foreclosure process authorized by R.C. 5722.10. This process allows a property owner to donate a tax delinquent property to the LCLRC. These types of properties have only been accepted by the LCLRC when the property has no liens or encumbrances other than the delinquent property taxes.
The property taxes are extinguished upon transfer to the LCLRC. This process requires the approval of the Lorain County Auditor.
Conclusion
Through these statutory processes, the LCLRC has been successful and had a beneficial impact on the communities of Lorain
County. As an agent of partner municipalities, the LCLRC has demolished over two hundred condemned structures and created
green space. Through the tax foreclosure, donation, and deed in lieu processes, the LCLRC has acquired title to over one hundred
and fifty abandoned structures that will be demolished by use of grant funds. Due to the efforts of the LCLRC Board and staff, and
all of the county departments that play a vital role in the process, the problems created by abandoned, condemned, and tax delinquent properties finally may have a solution.

18

Announcements
Congratulations to LCBA Member Gowri Hampole! On June 9, 2015, Gowri was inducted as a Fellow of the Ohio
State Bar Foundation. Gowri is also our District 10 representative for the OSBA Council of Delegates and she is on
the OSBA Selection Committee. To become a Fellow, lawyers must first be nominated by their peers before going
through a selection process and committing their time to the OSBF's outreach programs while helping fund the
OSBF's statewide grant-making program. OSBF President (and fellow LCBA member) Lee Belardo notes that the
OSBF granted over $796,000 this past year alone funding programs such as Toledo's Advocating Opportunities to
address the state's human trafficking program. AO's mission is to help young victims prosecute their traffickers and
to secure educational and social educational and social services to prepare them for new futures. The LCBA
Foundation has also contributed to efforts to end human trafficking in Lorain County.
Gowri Hampole

Kurt Anderson recently participated in the 11th Annual Rotary Bicycle Tour for MESA on June 25, 2015. The bike ride was a total of 6 days and
raised money for MESA (Medical Equipment and Supplies Abroad) which provides medical equipment and supplies to other countries. Last year
the tour raised $48,000. The tour first began when Kurt along with five other rotarians from his club (the Elyria Sunrise Rotary Club) and the
Elyria Rotary Club, road to the 2005 Rotary International Convention. Way to go, Kurt!
Kryszak & Associates, Co., LPA, Attorneys at Law, are excited to announce that Attorney, Douglas R. Henry, has joined
our law firm. Doug brings with him 14 years of experience as a practicing attorney and focuses his practice in the areas
of family law (dissolution, divorce, custody and juvenile matters), as well as in the areas of probate and estate planning.
R. Emmett Moran is proud to announce of counsel affiliation with the newly-formed firm of Collins, Roche, Utley
& Garner, LLC. The firm's 18 lawyers offer services throughout Ohio from offices in Cleveland, Akron, and
Columbus. Kurt will working in the Cleveland office, located in Westlake. His new contact information is R.
Emmett Moran, Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, 800 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 1100, Westlake, Ohio 44145 (T:
216-916-7730; F: 216-916-7725) email: emoran@cruglaw.com.

Douglas R. Henry

Ken Ortner and Nicholas Hanek are pleased to announce the formation of Ortner Hanek, LLC. They are located at 5320 Hoag Drive, Suite B, Elyria,
Ohio 44035 (phone 440-934-5677; fax 440-346-2093). Additionally, they are pleased to announce that Attorney Patrick Hakos has joined their firm.

Did you know???


- that the LCBA posts employment opportunities (both firms seeking help and individuals seeking employment) on our website for free? If you have
an opening in your office, email us the employment listing and we will be happy to post it.
- that the LCBA sells materials from seminars? If you wanted to attend a seminar but couldn't fit it in your schedule, give us a call to receive the
materials from the seminar for a very reasonable price.
- that the LCBA has numerous membership benefits? Check out our website for a current listing.
Use of the LCBA Offices
All members are welcome and encouraged to use the LCBA
offices for meetings, depositions, work rooms, etc. Over the
past two years, the use of the office has grown to a point that
we must institute a policy for using the facilities. All members are welcome to use the office free of charge during regular business hours (8 a.m. until 4 p.m., unless a previouslyscheduled event takes us out of the office during a given time).
If your meeting runs past 4:00 p.m., a charge of $50 per hour
will be billed to you and will not be prorated. No one is permitted to use the office without a member of the LCBA staff
present. Any copies that are made will be charged at $.15 per
copy and will only be made by LCBA staff. Bottled water and
coffee continue to be free but there will be a charge for any
other refreshments. Thank you for understanding.

19

New Members
The LCBA would like to welcome the following new members: Daniellela Bearden, Stephen Bosak, Patrick Carr (student), Marty Clarke,
Meghan Connolly, Gregory Ferrell, Ryan Fisher, Patrick Hakos, Kevin Klekota (student), Thomas Koglman (student), Kevin McCarthy (student),
David Michalski, Joseph Motta, Lindsay Poprocki, Christopher Uhle, Robert Weber
Office Space/Sharing Available
Officer Space Available at 409 East Avenue, Elyria, Ohio. 1,325 sq. ft. Newly remodeled. Three offices with a spacious reception area. The
office is conveniently located with quick access to Interstate 480. You have your own separate entrance and ample parking and storage. Space
includes a large kitchen and restroom. $1,650 per month/utilities included
Office sharing available at Lorain National Bank 124 Middle Avenue, 6th Floor, Elyria, Ohio 44035. Very convenient to Elyria Municipal Court
and the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas . Private offices furnished with desk and bookshelf; 1) approximately 15 by 15 - $350/month;
2) approximately 9 by 9 - $250/month. Price includes sharing reception area and kitchen as well as off street parking. Additional arrangements
can be made for conference room. Contact Attorney Randolph Roth at 440-284-3896.
Office Sharing Available at the Executive Building, 300 4th Street, Elyria. Share conference room, reception area and kitchen. Arrangements
can be made to share copy machine, fax, DSL and whatever additional cooperation you can think of. $100/month for conference room privileges; $175/month cubicle; $300/month small office; $400/month larger office. The prices include off street parking for you and your clients. If
needed, there is space for your staff. Contact Jim Deery at 440-323-9500.
Have an announcement you want to share with the members of the LCBA? Contact the office with the information.
If you have a change in your contact information, please let the LCBA know so that we may keep your information current.

20

21

Вам также может понравиться