Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Pommeranz

Citation: 2004-Ohio-1586

Docket Number: 20031811

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-04-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Pommeranz, 102 Ohio St.3d 26, 2004-Ohio-1586.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. POMMERANZ. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Pommeranz, 102 Ohio St.3d 26, 2004-Ohio-1586.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Engaging in a pattern 
of seriously neglecting clients’ cases and repeatedly deceiving clients — 
Ignoring investigative inquiries and resulting disciplinary proceedings — 
Previous discipline for other serious misconduct. 
(No. 2003-1811 — Submitted December 15, 2003 — Decided April 14, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court, No. 02-63. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Melvin R. Pommeranz of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0031840, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1973.  In Toledo Bar 
Assn. v. Pommeranz (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 274, 649 N.E.2d 179, we suspended 
respondent’s license to practice law for one year, staying the entire suspension on 
conditions, and ordered him to serve a one-year monitored probation for his neglect 
of three clients’ cases.  In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Pommeranz (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 139, 
753 N.E.2d 175, we suspended respondent’s license for one year, staying six months 
of this sanction on conditions, and ordered him to serve another one-year probation 
for his neglect of another client’s case.  In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Pommeranz, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 1471, 2002-Ohio-4002, 772 N.E.2d 1205, we found respondent in contempt for 
his failure to comply with administrative requirements of our previous order. 
{¶2} 
On November 15, 2002, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed an 
amended complaint charging respondent with six counts of professional misconduct.  
Respondent was served with the complaint but did not answer, and relator moved for 
default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(2) relative to four of the six counts.  A master 
commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Discipline considered the motion, making findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
recommendation. 
{¶3} 
As to the first count, evidence substantiated that a client retained 
respondent in September 2000 to represent him in connection with custody and 
support issues existing between the client and his ex-wife.  In January 2001, the 
parties agreed at a hearing to an order resolving the dispute, and respondent promised 
to prepare and file a judgment entry to document the agreement.  The client later 
learned that the entry had not been filed.  When the client inquired of respondent in 
March 2001, respondent told the client that the entry had been forwarded to the 
client’s ex-wife’s counsel, a statement that was not true.  Arrearages in the client’s 
child support payments accumulated due to respondent’s delay, and respondent 
stopped returning the client’s telephone calls.  Eventually, the ex-wife’s attorney 
prepared and filed the judgment entry. 
{¶4} 
The master commissioner found that respondent had thereby violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry 
out a contract of professional employment), and 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
{¶5} 
As to a second count of misconduct, evidence substantiated that a 
married couple paid respondent $250 for his assistance in obtaining custody of their 
two grandchildren.  Respondent promised to file a motion to obtain custody on his 
clients’ behalf.  Thereafter, the couple attempted unsuccessfully to contact 
respondent, finally reaching him in March 2001.  At that time, respondent advised 
them that the custody case had been set for a pretrial conference on April 26, 2001.  
In fact, no pretrial conference had been scheduled because no custody motion had 
been filed. 
{¶6} 
The master commissioner found that respondent had thereby violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 1-102(A)(4). 
{¶7} 
As to a third count, evidence substantiated that another client retained 
respondent in March 2001 to prepare a complaint for allocation of parental rights and 
January Term, 2004 
3 
responsibilities.  The client paid respondent $650.  Thereafter, respondent notified the 
client of modifications to the complaint and advised him that court dates had been 
scheduled for action on it.  Neither of these representations was true.  The client 
ultimately proceeded without legal counsel. 
{¶8} 
The master commissioner found that respondent had thereby violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 1-102(A)(4). 
{¶9} 
As to a fourth count of misconduct, evidence substantiated that 
another couple retained respondent to pursue an adoption, paying him a $500 retainer 
and $180 for court costs.  Respondent later represented to these clients that he had 
filed a motion for change in disposition of permanent custody and that hearings on 
the motion had been scheduled for March 15 and April 25, 2001.  Thereafter, 
respondent reported to his clients that the March 15 hearing had been cancelled.  
They discovered, however, that he had not filed the custody motion.  And when his 
clients appeared on April 25, they found that no hearing had been scheduled.  The 
clients requested a refund in a letter that respondent received by certified mail in 
September 2001, but he has not returned his clients’ money. 
{¶10} The master commissioner found that respondent had thereby violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 1-102(A)(4), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to return funds a 
client is entitled to receive).  Moreover, because respondent failed to respond to 
investigative inquiries concerning this misconduct, the master commissioner also 
found respondent in violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in 
disciplinary proceedings). 
{¶11} The master commissioner recommended disbarment, noting that there 
was no proof of mitigating circumstances in the record.  See Section 10(B)(2) of the 
Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  The board adopted the 
master commissioner’s findings and recommendation. 1 
                                                 
1.  The board further found, based on the master commissioner’s report, that respondent had 
additionally engaged in misconduct relative to the remaining two counts in the complaint.  However, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶12} We agree that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and DR 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 1-102(A)(4), and 9-102(B)(4) with respect to the preceding 
clients.  We also adopt the recommendation to disbar. 
{¶13} When attorneys engage in a pattern of neglect and fail to cooperate in 
an ensuing disciplinary investigation, the misconduct ordinarily warrants an 
indefinite suspension.  Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 211, 212, 
718 N.E.2d 1271; Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 219, 
221, 718 N.E.2d 1277; Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488, 
490, 683 N.E.2d 1148.  However, when an attorney has seriously neglected clients’ 
cases, has repeatedly deceived clients, has ignored investigative inquiries and 
resulting disciplinary proceedings, has been disciplined before for other serious 
misconduct, and has presented no mitigating evidence to justify leniency, the 
appropriate sanction is disbarment.  Disciplinary Counsel v. France, 97 Ohio St.3d 
240, 2002-Ohio-5945, 778 N.E.2d 573. 
{¶14} Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
James E. Brazeau and Gordon R. Barry, for relator. 
__________________ 
                                                                                                                                     
relator did not move for default on these counts and presented no evidence to substantiate them.  We 
reject these findings pursuant to our independent review and final authority in disciplinary cases.  Ohio 
State Bar Assn. v. Reid (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 327, 708 N.E.2d 193, paragraph one of the syllabus.