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

Citation: 2007-Ohio-4268

Docket Number: 20070736

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mazanec, 114 Ohio St.3d 427, 2007-Ohio-4268.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MAZANEC. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mazanec, 114 Ohio St.3d 427, 2007-Ohio-
4268.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct— Stealing client funds — Conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Conduct that adversely 
reflects on a lawyer's fitness to practice law — Conduct that intentionally 
prejudices or damages a client — Failure to maintain records of client 
funds and render appropriate accounts — Failure to cooperate in a 
disciplinary investigation — Permanent disbarment. 
(No. 2007-0736 — Submitted June 6, 2007 — Decided August 29, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-084. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David Thomas Mazanec of Solon, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0029149, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1976.  For the reasons 
that follow, we conclude that respondent should be permanently disbarred from 
the practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 2} On October 6, 2006, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, 
filed a complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct.  Respondent 
was served with a copy of the complaint but did not answer, and relator moved for 
default under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner appointed by the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline granted the motion, 
making findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation, all of which 
the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Count One 
{¶ 3} Katherine Frank and her parents were involved in a traffic accident 
in November 1999, and each of them suffered serious injuries.  The Franks filed a 
personal-injury lawsuit, and they reached a settlement with the defendants in May 
2001.  The Franks then retained respondent to set up trusts for the settlement 
proceeds.  Respondent was appointed trustee of the Katherine Frank Family Trust, 
with Katherine Frank named as the beneficiary. 
{¶ 4} Respondent opened an account for the trust at Huntington National 
Bank under the name “David T. Mazanec, Trustee.”  A total of $1,015,950 was 
transferred into the trust from the settlement proceeds, and that sum was deposited 
into the Huntington account. 
{¶ 5} Article 10.11 of the trust required respondent to provide an annual 
accounting of the trust’s activities to Katherine Frank.  Beginning in 2004, 
respondent failed to provide that annual accounting.  Because respondent failed to 
reply to her requests for information about the trust’s activities, Katherine Frank 
retained two law firms to help her prepare new trust documents and to seek a full 
accounting from respondent.  With the help of those law firms, Frank learned that 
respondent had written checks totaling more than $450,000 from the trust account 
to himself or to other persons or entities between 2001 and 2006 without Frank’s 
knowledge or approval.  Frank also learned that respondent had deposited more 
than $240,000 of respondent’s own funds into the trust account, leaving the 
account nearly $213,000 short of the amount that should have been in it.  In 
December 2006, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas removed 
respondent as the trustee of the Katherine Frank Family Trust and ordered 
respondent to pay Frank $212,925 for the missing funds, as well as $638,776 in 
punitive damages, plus attorney fees and costs. 
{¶ 6} We agree with the board’s findings that these actions by 
respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules: DR 1-102(A)(4) (barring an 
January Term, 2007 
3 
attorney from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on an 
attorney’s fitness to practice law), 7-101(A)(3) (barring an attorney from 
intentionally prejudicing or damaging a client), and 9-102(B)(3) (requiring an 
attorney to maintain complete records of all funds of a client and to render 
appropriate accounts). 
Count Two 
{¶ 7} In March 2006, relator sent a letter to respondent asking him to 
reply to the grievance that Katherine Frank had filed against him.  In April 2006, 
relator sent a second request asking respondent to reply to the grievance no later 
than May 5, 2006.  On May 5, 2006, relator received a letter from respondent 
stating that respondent had made a “financial mistake” in his handling of the 
Frank trust, but respondent claimed that he had “replenished the lost funds.”  
Respondent promised to provide proof for that statement, but relator never 
received an accounting from him. 
{¶ 8} We agree with the board’s finding that these actions by respondent 
violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring attorneys to cooperate with and assist in 
any disciplinary investigation). 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} Relator recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law.  The panel and the board agreed.  Respondent has filed 
no objections to the board’s findings or its recommendation. 
{¶ 10} 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.”).  The 
aggravating factors in this case include respondent’s dishonest or selfish motive, 
his lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process, his refusal to acknowledge the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
wrongful nature of his conduct, the harm suffered by his vulnerable client, and his 
failure to make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (e), (g), (h), and (i).  
Mitigating factors identified by the board include the absence of any prior 
disciplinary record and the imposition of a civil judgment against respondent for 
his misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (f). 
{¶ 11} After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, 
we agree with the board that respondent should be disbarred.  By stealing from his 
client’s trust fund, respondent has violated his professional obligation to protect 
his client’s interests and his duty to provide loyalty and candor to the client during 
the representation.  And by failing to cooperate in relator’s investigation, 
respondent has failed to treat his colleagues in the profession with the respect and 
courtesy that they deserve.  His actions demonstrate that he is not fit to practice 
law. 
{¶ 12} We have ordered permanent disbarment in similar cases.  See, e.g., 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones, 112 Ohio St.3d 46, 2006-Ohio-6367, 857 N.E.2d 
1221 (attorney repeatedly misappropriated funds from a charitable foundation 
established by his late client and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary 
investigation); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Schwartz, 98 Ohio St.3d 438, 2003-Ohio-
1635, 786 N.E.2d 866 (attorney misappropriated clients’ money, failed to make 
restitution, and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation); Cleveland 
Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897 (“The 
continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that the 
strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases”). 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2007 
5 
__________________ 
 
McFadden & Freeburg Co., L.P.A., and Donald P. McFadden; Smith & 
Smith Co., L.P.A., and Timothy Gibbons; and Ellen S. Mandell, Bar Counsel, for 
relator. 
______________________