WALBRIDGE — The part-time village administrator has resigned after the Ohio Supreme Court decided to
uphold his suspension from the Toledo Bar Association.
Jerry James Bishop II, known as Jim Bishop, turned in his resignation last week. It was accepted by
council at the Jan. 8 meeting.
In the opinion in the case Toledo Bar Association v. Bishop, Ohio’s top court suspended Bishop from the
practice of law in Ohio for two years. The second year is stayed on the condition that he engage in no
further misconduct.
The bar alleged that Bishop committed five ethical violations, causing his elderly clients to amend an
annuity contract to designation Bishop’s wife and sons’ Boy Scout troop as contingent beneficiaries,
then giving false testimony about that conduct during the ensuing disciplinary investigation.
Bishop worked part time for the village and earned $15,000 annually. He did not do legal work for the
village, said Mayor Ed Kolanko. Walbridge has a solicitor, Brian Ballenger.
“He didn’t act in an attorney capacity here, but Jim decided not to have any issues arise with the ruling
and the Village of Walbridge,” Kolanko said.
Bishop, in a phone interview, said he did not want the decision to cast a pall over Walbridge.
“My whole intention was to not have this suspension have any other negative effect on the council or
village,” Bishop said.
Kolanko said Bishop has been employed with Walbridge for over 30 years, first as magistrate of mayor’s
court, then as administrator.
“And he’s served the village well,” Kolanko said. “Jim is a good-hearted individual. He cares and works
hard for the village.”
The Board of Professional Conduct found Bishop committed four of the five alleged violations and
recommended the suspension. The court accepted the board’s findings.
According to the court’s release, Bishop met Isadore and Helen Urbanski in 2013 and agreed to handle
their estate planning.
In October 2013, the Urbanskis designated a church as the contingent beneficiary for an annuity contract.
On Dec. 21, 2013, they signed a change that designated Bishop’s wife and his sons’ Boy Scout troop as
the beneficiaries. The form, which was completed by hand, identified Bishop’s wife by her maiden name,
Maureen McQuillen, though she had not used that name for 20 years. The next day, the Urbanskis executed
their wills, with Bishop and his wife as witnesses.
In October 2015, PNC Investments sent the Urbanskis a letter advising them that although they had
designated McQuillen and the troop as the beneficiaries, they had not designated a primary beneficiary.
A friend who helped care for the Urbanskis saw the letter. After Isadrore Urbanski died in March 2016,
the friend attached a copy of the letter to a grievance he filed.
In Bishop’s initial response in June 2017, he did not acknowledge that he was involved in changing the
designation. He said he would recommend that his client take immediate corrective action.
The next month, Helen Urbanski executed a new form designating herself as the beneficiary. She died on
Dec. 4, 2017 and the annuity passed to her estate. Bishop probated the estate and waived his executor’s
fee to allow a claim for the services provided by the Urbanskis’ friend.
During a September 2018 hearing before a grievance committee, Bishop expressed surprise about the change
of beneficiary form with his wife’s and Boy Scout troop information. He testified that he had no
explanation of how that had happened.
At a May disciplinary hearing, Bishop repeatedly testified that he had virtually no recollection of the
events surrounding the completion of the 2103 change-of-beneficiary form. Ultimately, he admitted that
the handwriting on the form was his.
The board found that Bishop violated professional conduct by preparing the form by which the Urbanskis
designated Bishop’s wife as a contingent beneficiary. The board also found that Bishop’s designation of
his wife as a beneficiary was “sufficiently egregious” as to warrant a separate violation of
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4 (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s
fitness to practice law).
In addition, the board found that Bishop violated two other clauses by falsely testifying that he had
virtually no recollection of the events surrounding the Urbanskis’ change of annuity beneficiaries.
Bishop would have acquired $38,000 from the annuities.
“… Bishop gave false testimony about his conduct during the ensuing disciplinary investigation.
Therefore, the board determined that a more severe sanction is necessary to protect the public from
future harm and recommends that we suspend Bishop from the practice of law for two years with one year
stated on the condition that he engage in no further misconduct,” the court wrote.
Bishop was also asked about a 1997 case, Lourdes College of Sylvania, Ohio et. al. v. Bishop. An ill,
elderly woman had made Bishop, who was a family friend, a 50 % beneficiary of her trust. Bishop said the
case was dismissed.
In his resignation letter, Bishop cited several accomplishments as administrator, including obtaining
grants, rewriting and enforcing the zoning code and helping to remodel the village pool.
“As administrator, I do not serve in a legal capacity. Having been notified of a temporary suspensions by
the Ohio Supreme Court, I do not want this to affect the village, council or you in any negative way. I
hereby submit my resignation to you if you believe that it is in the best interest of the village,”
Bishop wrote.
Bishop, who is a retired captain in the U.S. Navy, was hired as administrator in spring 2016. He has been
practicing law since 1979.
The position became open when Kenneth Frost, who was also the police chief, resigned as part-time
administrator.
Having Frost fill both jobs had been under fire for years by a former councilman.
After repeated questioning from Cecil Adkins, Kolanko in 2013 asked for a legal opinion from then-Ohio
Attorney General Mike DeWine. In an opinion dated Oct. 22, 2013, DeWine said a person may serve
simultaneously as administrator and chief of police for Walbridge.
Kolanko said he, staff and council will review the village administrator job description and decide if it
will remain part time, then advertise for a replacement.
