Case Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rockman

Citation: 2001-Ohio-6975

Docket Number: 20011203

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rockman, 94 Ohio St.3d 12, 2001-Ohio-6975.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROCKMAN. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rockman (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 12.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Engaging in illegal 
conduct involving moral turpitude — Engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter — Failing to carry out contract for professional 
employment — Prejudicing or damaging client during course of 
professional relationship — Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice — Entering into an agreement for, charging, or 
collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee — Handling a legal matter 
without adequate preparation — Concealing or knowingly failing to 
disclose that which is required by law to be revealed — Failing to 
maintain complete records of all funds coming into lawyer’s possession 
and render appropriate accounts thereof — Practicing in a jurisdiction 
where doing so is in violation of the regulations of that jurisdiction — 
Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in a disciplinary investigation 
or hearing. 
(No. 01-1203 — Submitted August 28, 2001 — Decided December 19, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-100. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  After respondent, Thomas G. Rockman of Tampa, Florida, 
Attorney Registration No. 0033314, failed to answer a five-count complaint filed 
against him on December 4, 2000, by relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
the matter was referred to Master Commissioner John R. Milligan for ruling upon 
the relator’s motion for default. 
 
The master commissioner found that a notice of respondent’s default was 
served on respondent, who had an opportunity to answer.  Based upon the 
unanswered complaint and exhibits submitted by relator, the master commissioner 
found that in 1995, John J. Hernandez paid respondent $600 to represent him in 
connection with a personal injury claim and a motor vehicle citation.  Although 
respondent met with Hernandez over a period of two years and represented to 
Hernandez that he had filed his personal injury suit, respondent did not file any 
action for Hernandez.  The master commissioner concluded that respondent’s 
conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct 
involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer 
shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 
law), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract for professional 
employment), and 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not prejudice or damage his client). 
 
In addition, the master commissioner found that in 1995, respondent 
agreed to process a claim for toxic chemical exposure for Hernandez on a 
contingent fee basis.  During the next year, respondent showed Hernandez a letter 
purportedly from the defendant company, said that he had filed a complaint 
against the company, and showed Hernandez an answer, which he represented as 
having been filed by the company.  In fact, respondent had not filed any claims or 
pleadings for Hernandez or received any correspondence or pleadings from the 
company.  The master commissioner concluded that respondent’s conduct in 
relation to this matter violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 6-101(A)(3), 7-
101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3). 
January Term, 2001 
3 
 
The master commissioner also found that after Hernandez was struck by a 
drunk driver in a different motor vehicle accident, respondent falsely represented 
himself to the insurance company as having been retained by Hernandez.  He then 
negotiated and settled Hernandez’s claim against the insurance company without 
Hernandez’s permission.  Respondent eventually informed Hernandez that 
respondent would have to pay $4,300 out of the settlement funds to another 
attorney for services involved in the personal injury action.  The master 
commissioner concluded that on this count, respondent violated DR 1-101(A)(3), 
1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 2-106(A) (a lawyer shall not enter into an 
agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 6-101(A)(2) 
(a lawyer shall not handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the 
circumstances), 6-101(A)(3), 7-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not conceal or 
knowingly fail to disclose that which he is required by law to reveal), and 9-
102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds coming into the 
lawyer’s possession and render appropriate accounts thereof). 
 
Finally, the master commissioner found that respondent failed to cooperate 
with relator’s attempts to investigate the charges against him, that he consistently 
failed to register with the Supreme Court since September 1991, and that in July 
1998, we suspended him from the practice of law for failure to meet his 
continuing legal education requirements.  In re Report of Comm. on Continuing 
Legal Edn. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 1456, 696 N.E.2d 215.  As to these counts, the 
master commissioner found that respondent violated DR 3-101(B) (practicing in a 
jurisdiction where doing so is in violation of the regulations of that jurisdiction) 
and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in 
an investigation or hearing). 
 
The master commissioner found no mitigating circumstances and 
recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the master 
commissioner. 
 
We have reviewed the record in this case and adopt the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby 
permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in judgment. 
__________________ 
 
Howard D. Mishkind, Jacob A.H. Kronenberg and Thomas E. Kocovsky, 
Jr., for relator. 
__________________