LCBA's 79th President, Andrea Kryszak, Takes Over: Summer, 2015 Volume 10, Issue 3
LCBA's 79th President, Andrea Kryszak, Takes Over: Summer, 2015 Volume 10, Issue 3
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 [email protected] Web www.loraincountybar.org
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.
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)
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:
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
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
440-323-5121
750 S. Abbe Rd. Elyria
We Accept Insurance / Medicare / Some Medicaid
10
www.psychandpsych.com
11
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
14
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.
16
17
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: [email protected].
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.
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