Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Ranke

Citation: 2011-Ohio-4730

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-09-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Ranke, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4730.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-4730 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. RANKE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ranke, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-
4730.] 
(No. 2011-0379 — Submitted April 19, 2011 — Decided September 22, 2011.) 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Failure to properly maintain client trust account — 
Failure to file appellate brief — Failure to cooperate — Prior disciplinary 
infraction —  Indefinite suspension. 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-053. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Carolyn Kaye Ranke of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0043735, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1989.  
On October 21, 2010, we publicly reprimanded her for neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Ranke, 127 Ohio St.3d 126, 2010-
Ohio-5036, 937 N.E.2d 84. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} On June 14, 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with three counts of misconduct involving violations of the 
Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and the Supreme Court Rules for the 
Government of the Bar.  The complaint alleged that respondent had improperly 
maintained her client trust account, failed to file an appellate brief on behalf of a 
client, and failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation. 
{¶ 3} Respondent was served by certified mail with a copy of the 
complaint, but did not file an answer or otherwise respond.  Relator filed a motion 
for default judgment on November 30, 2010, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F), 
supported by an affidavit from an assistant disciplinary counsel. 
{¶ 4} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
appointed a master commissioner, who considered the motion for default and 
prepared a report containing findings of fact and conclusions of law and 
recommending that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. 
The board adopted the master commissioner's report in its entirety. We agree that 
respondent has committed professional misconduct as found by the master 
commissioner and the board and that an indefinite suspension is warranted. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 5} Respondent has maintained an IOLTA account at FirstMerit Bank 
since 1999.  She is the only authorized user of the account.  In October 2008, 
respondent deposited $10,000 that belonged to a client, Christopher Jerry, into her 
IOLTA account and agreed to use the money to pay the client’s bills for him at no 
charge.  She wrote six checks on his behalf totaling $9,483.75.  Relator alleged 
that respondent stopped representing Jerry in July 2009, but did not return the 
remaining $516.25 to him. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
{¶ 6} In June 2009, respondent advanced $1,000 from her IOLTA account 
to client Shanese McClain.  None of the funds belonged to McClain when 
respondent made the advance. 
{¶ 7} FirstMerit Bank notified relator in July 2009 that respondent’s 
IOLTA account was overdrawn.  Relator then sent respondent a letter of inquiry 
with a copy of the overdraft notice.  Respondent did not reply.  When respondent 
did not respond to a second letter of inquiry, relator sent a subpoena duces tecum 
to respondent, requiring her to appear and testify about the overdraft and to bring 
copies of her client ledgers and IOLTA account statements.  Respondent did not 
appear and did not advise relator that she would not appear. 
{¶ 8} Relator sent a second subpoena.  This time, respondent appeared for 
her deposition on September 24, 2009, but failed to bring the required documents.  
Eventually, in response to its subpoena, relator received copies of respondent’s 
IOLTA account records for August 2008, through January 2010, that 
substantiated misuses of the account. 
{¶ 9} The master commissioner found by clear and convincing evidence, 
and the board agreed, that with regard to Count One, respondent had violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(e) (prohibiting a lawyer from providing financial assistance to a 
client for expenses other than court or litigation costs), 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a 
lawyer to maintain a record for each client on whose behalf funds are held), 
1.15(a)(5) (requiring a lawyer to perform and retain a monthly reconciliation of 
trust account funds), and 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or 
other property that the client is entitled to receive). 
{¶ 10} We agree that respondent’s misconduct as alleged in Count One 
violated the above Rules of Professional Conduct, with the exception of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d).  There is insufficient evidence in the record that respondent 
had ceased representing Jerry in July 2009 or that Jerry was entitled to receive the 
remaining funds from his initial deposit.  Therefore, we dismiss the violation of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d) because it is not supported by clear and convincing 
evidence. 
Count Two 
{¶ 11} In January 2009, respondent filed a notice of appearance in the 
Eighth District Court of Appeals on behalf of Tierra Wilson, who was appealing 
her criminal conviction.  The court granted respondent four extensions of time but 
respondent never filed Wilson’s brief.  The court finally dismissed Wilson’s 
appeal for respondent’s failure to file a brief.  Wilson wrote to respondent on 
several occasions asking about the progress of her appeal.  Respondent did not 
respond to Wilson’s letters and did not tell her that her criminal appeal had been 
dismissed. 
{¶ 12} In October 2009, relator sent respondent a letter of inquiry with a 
copy of a grievance that relator had received from Wilson.  Respondent did not 
reply.  Relator sent respondent a second letter of inquiry in November 2009 and a 
third in February 2010, each by certified mail.  Respondent did not respond to the 
letters. 
{¶ 13} The master commissioner found by clear and convincing evidence, 
and the board agreed, that respondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(a) (requiring 
a lawyer to abide by a client’s decisions regarding the objectives of the 
representation), 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of a legal matter), 8.4(d) (prohibiting 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 14} We agree that the respondent’s misconduct as alleged in Count 
Two violated the above rules. 
Count Three 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
{¶ 15} Despite repeated efforts to contact respondent regarding the 
allegations in Count One and Count Two of the complaint, respondent failed to 
cooperate with relator’s investigation in either matter.  The master commissioner 
found by clear and convincing evidence, and the board agreed, that respondent 
had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to 
respond to a demand for information from a disciplinary authority) and Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). 
{¶ 16} We agree that respondent’s misconduct as alleged in Count Three  
violated the above rules. 
Aggravation and Mitigation 
{¶ 17} Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”) sets forth guidelines for imposing sanctions on a lawyer, 
including the aggravating and mitigating factors that are to be considered.  The 
master commissioner found there were no mitigating factors in this case.  The 
master commissioner found the following factors to be aggravating: respondent’s 
multiple offenses, lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process, refusal to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct, and the vulnerability of and 
resulting harm to the victims, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d), (e), (g), and (h), as 
well as the prior disciplinary offense for which she was given a public reprimand.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a). 
Sanction 
{¶ 18} The master commissioner recommended that respondent be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  In support of this 
recommendation, the master commissioner relied on similar cases in which this 
court imposed an indefinite suspension on an attorney.  In Akron Bar Assn. v. 
Goodlet, 115 Ohio St.3d 7, 2007-Ohio-4271, 873 N.E.2d 815, we indefinitely 
suspended the respondent for neglecting his duty to pursue his clients’ claims, for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and for failing to 
cooperate in the disciplinary process.  Like the respondent in this case, Goodlet 
also had a prior disciplinary record. 
{¶ 19} In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Emerson (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 375, 704 
N.E.2d 238, the respondent had engaged in neglect and misrepresentation in five 
cases and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation.  He was indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law. 
{¶ 20} In Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 337, 2009-Ohio-
764, 904 N.E.2d 517, we indefinitely suspended the respondent for multiple 
instances of neglect and misconduct and for failure to cooperate in the 
disciplinary process.  And in Dayton Bar Assn. v. Wilson, 127 Ohio St.3d 10, 
2010-Ohio-4937, 935 N.E.2d 841, the respondent was indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law as a result of her failure to maintain accurate records of 
the funds in her client trust account, failure to promptly deliver funds to a client, 
failure to diligently represent her client, and failure to cooperate with the relator’s 
investigation. 
{¶ 21} In the instant case, the board adopted the sanction as recommended 
by the master commissioner.  We accept the board’s recommendation and order 
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law indefinitely.  Costs taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Philip A. King, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
____________________