Case Title: Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rozanc

Citation: 2012-Ohio-2408

Docket Number: 2011-1735

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-06-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rozanc, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2408.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-2408 
LAKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROZANC. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rozanc,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2408.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Fraud—Conduct prejudicial to administration of 
justice—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2011-1735—Submitted December 7, 2011—Decided June 5, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-017. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Frank Rozanc of Eastlake, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No.  0047173, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1990.  On August 
27, 2009, we suspended Rozanc’s license to practice law for one year with six 
months stayed on conditions for failing to diligently represent and properly 
communicate with a client serving as the executor of a decedent’s estate.  Lake 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rozanc, 123 Ohio St.3d 78, 2009-Ohio-4207, 914 N.E.2d 192.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
And in November 2009, we imposed an attorney-registration suspension for his 
failure to register for the 2009-to-2011 biennium.  In re Attorney Registration 
Suspension of Rozanc, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256.  
Both suspensions remain in effect. 
{¶ 2} In a February 14, 2011 complaint, relator, Lake County Bar 
Association, alleged that while serving as the executor of the estate of Richard L. 
Kariher, Rozanc had been found to have committed a fraud upon the probate court 
and concealed assets of the estate.  These findings were based upon Rozanc’s 
submission of a final accounting to the probate court that falsely stated that he had 
distributed $19,228.28 to the guardian of the estate’s sole beneficiary.  He had 
attached a receipt acknowledging receipt of the distribution that purported to have 
been signed by the guardian of the beneficiary, but the signature was a forgery.  
After the forgery came to light, relator alleged, Rozanc tendered a check to the 
guardian, but it was returned unpaid with a notation that the bank was unable to 
locate the account on which it was drawn. 
{¶ 3} Although the complaint was served at the business address Rozanc 
has registered with this court, he failed to file an answer, and relator moved for 
default. 
{¶ 4} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline found that relator had proven the allegations in its 
complaint by clear and convincing evidence and that Rozanc’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating or attempting to violate 
the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct), (b) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or 
trustworthiness), (c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and (d) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).  The 
January Term, 2012 
3 
board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact and misconduct, and so 
do we. 
{¶ 5} Based upon these findings of fact and misconduct, the board 
recommends that we indefinitely suspend Rozanc from the practice of law in 
Ohio. 
{¶ 6} In imposing a sanction for attorney misconduct, we consider the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  See Stark 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 
818, ¶ 16.  The board found only one mitigating factor—that Rozanc has paid 
restitution to the beneficiary as ordered by the probate court.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c).  As aggravating factors, the board found that Rozanc acted 
with a dishonest and selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, failed to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, and caused harm to the 
vulnerable beneficiary of the decedent’s estate.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(b), (c), (g), and (h).  In addition to these factors, we also find that 
Rozanc has a prior disciplinary record and has failed to cooperate in the 
disciplinary process.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a) and (e). 
{¶ 7} We have previously imposed an indefinite suspension for an 
attorney who neglected a probate estate, concealed its assets, and compounded his 
misconduct by failing to cooperate in disciplinary process.  Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Saumer, 86 Ohio St.3d 312, 314, 715 N.E.2d 124 (1999).  Therefore, we agree 
with the board’s recommendation that an indefinite suspension is warranted in 
this case. 
{¶ 8} Accordingly, Frank Rozanc is indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Rozanc. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
James P. Koerner, for relator. 
______________________