Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Rosenfield

Citation: 2016-Ohio-1583

Docket Number: 2015-1635

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-04-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Rosenfield, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1583.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-1583 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROSENFIELD. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rosenfield, Slip Opinion  
No. 2016-Ohio-1583.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the 
former Code of Professional Responsibility —Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2015-1635—November 17, 2015—Decided April 20, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2014-111. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Ronald Lee Rosenfield, formerly of South Euclid, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0021093, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1970.  We suspended Rosenfield’s license on an interim basis, effective August 5, 
2014, after he was convicted of a felony for willfully failing to truthfully account 
for federal income taxes and Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”) taxes 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
that he was statutorily required to withhold from the wages of his employees and 
pay to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).  In re Rosenfield, 140 Ohio St.3d 
1232, 2014-Ohio-3365, 16 N.E.3d 669. 
{¶ 2} In a December 30, 2014 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, 
charged Rosenfield with multiple ethical violations arising from the conduct that 
led to his felony conviction.1  Rosenfield entered into joint stipulations in which he 
admitted the facts and misconduct alleged in the complaint and agreed that certain 
aggravating and mitigating factors are present.  The parties jointly recommended 
that Rosenfield be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio but that 
he be credited for the time served under his interim felony suspension and comply 
with certain terms and conditions on his reinstatement to the practice of law. 
{¶ 3} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct granted the parties’ 
motion to waive the hearing, noting that there were no unresolved issues and that 
compelling Rosenfield’s attendance at a hearing would create a heavy financial 
burden since he now resides in California.  The panel adopted the parties’ 
stipulations and recommended that Rosenfield be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law with credit for time served under his interim felony suspension. 
{¶ 4} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors and recommended that Rosenfield be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  But the board also specified that 
Rosenfield should not receive credit for the time he has served under his interim 
felony suspension.  We adopt the board’s findings and indefinitely suspend 
Rosenfield from the practice of law in Ohio with no credit for time served. 
                                                 
1 Because Rosenfield’s misconduct occurred both prior to and after the adoption of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct on February 1, 2007, relator charged respondent under the applicable rules of 
both the former Code of Professional Responsibility and the current Rules of Professional Conduct.  
However, when both the former and current rules are cited for the same acts, the allegations 
comprise a single continuing ethical violation.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 
330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1. 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} According to the parties’ stipulations, Rosenfield was a partner in the 
law firm S & R Co., L.P.A.  In 1998, the state of Ohio revoked the firm’s corporate 
charter for nonpayment of state franchise taxes.  Rosenfield did not inform his 
partner of this revocation and continued to operate the practice under the corporate 
name until approximately 2003.  At that time, Rosenfield became the sole owner, 
and his former partner insisted that he change the firm name.  Thereafter, 
Rosenfield conducted his legal practice under the name Ronald L. Rosenfield Co., 
L.P.A. 
{¶ 6} At all times relevant herein, Rosenfield was responsible for the firm’s 
finances.  He hired a separate payroll company to provide payroll and employment 
tax-return services and funded an S & R Co., L.P.A., payroll account.  After he 
changed the firm’s name, Rosenfield never obtained a new Employer Identification 
Number (“EIN”) or filed any documents with the IRS to establish its existence as a 
taxable entity; on the contrary, he continued to use the payroll account and the EIN 
associated with the firm’s former name.  In early 2008, Rosenfield stopped funding 
the payroll account, voided the checks that the payroll company had prepared, and 
replaced the checks with checks that he issued from the Ronald L. Rosenfield Co., 
L.P.A., general operating account. 
{¶ 7} On February 12, 2014, Rosenfield pleaded guilty to a bill of 
information that charged him with failing to collect, account for, and pay federal 
income and FICA taxes for the employees of his law firm from October 2006 
through March 2011, a felony in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7202.  As part of his plea 
agreement, Rosenfield stipulated that from at least 1998 through 2011, he failed to 
file any type of corporate or business income-tax return and did not include a 
Schedule C on his own personal income-tax return to report the continued 
existence, income, and expenses of the law firm.  Pursuant to Rosenfield’s plea 
agreement, the court sentenced him to six months of home detention and five years 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
of probation.  The court also ordered him to pay restitution of $523,253.33 to the 
IRS.2   United States v. Rosenfield, N.D. Ohio No. 1:14cr34 (July 10, 2014). 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated that Rosenfield’s conduct violated DR 1-
102(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in illegal conduct involving moral 
turpitude), DR 1-102(A)(4) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (both prohibiting a lawyer 
from 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation), Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an 
illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness), and 
DR 1-102(A)(5) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (both prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 
in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).  The panel adopted 
the parties’ stipulations of fact and agreed that Rosenfield’s misconduct violated 
DR 1-102(A)(3), DR 1-102(A)(4) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), and Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(b).  Having found that Rosenfield’s misconduct did not prejudice the 
administration of justice, however, the panel unanimously dismissed the alleged 
violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d).  See Gov.Bar R. V(12)(G).  
The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct.  We adopt the 
board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final determination, 
                                                 
2 The amount of restitution included the approximately $200,000 in withholdings that Rosenfield 
failed to submit to the IRS from the fourth quarter of 2006 through the first quarter of 2011 (which 
formed the basis of the criminal charges against him), over $300,000 in additional withholdings that 
he failed to submit to the IRS from the fourth quarter of 2001 through the third quarter of 2006 (for 
which the statute of limitations for criminal charges had expired), and $10,933.86 in unreported 
federal unemployment taxes. 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in 
Gov.Bar R. V(13). 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated to just one aggravating factor—that 
Rosenfield engaged in a pattern of misconduct over approximately ten years.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3).  The panel and board also found that Rosenfield acted 
with a selfish or dishonest motive because he failed to pay taxes and kept the money 
for himself.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2).  As mitigating factors, the panel and 
board adopted the parties’ stipulations that Rosenfield (1) did not have a prior 
disciplinary record, (2) made a full and free disclosure to the board and 
demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, (3) 
submitted 19 letters attesting to his good character and competence as an attorney, 
(4) had other criminal penalties imposed for his misconduct, including a period of 
home detention and an order that he make restitution of $523,253.33 to the IRS, (5) 
cooperated with the underlying criminal investigation and admitted his 
wrongdoing, and (6) did not cause harm to his clients or employees.  See Gov.Bar 
R. V(13)(C)(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6). 
{¶ 11} The panel adopted the parties’ joint recommendation that Rosenfield 
be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and receive credit for the time 
served under his interim felony suspension, which commenced on August 5, 2014.  
The panel also agreed that Rosenfield should be required to (1) comply with the 
terms of his criminal probation, (2) make timely restitution in the amounts that the 
IRS determines to be appropriate in light of his income, and (3) serve a three-year 
period of monitored probation upon his reinstatement to the practice of law to 
ensure that he not only makes timely restitution payments to the IRS but also 
properly files and pays all employment and unemployment taxes for his practice 
going forward. 
{¶ 12} The board adopted the panel’s findings regarding the applicable 
aggravating and mitigating factors and recommended that Rosenfield be 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and agreed that his reinstatement 
should be conditioned as recommended by the panel.  But the board determined 
that Rosenfield should not receive any credit for the time served under his interim 
felony suspension. 
{¶ 13} In support of these recommendations, the panel and board 
considered several cases but found our decision in Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 
128 Ohio St.3d 390, 2011-Ohio-957, 944 N.E.2d 1166, to be most instructive.  
Smith admitted that he engaged in a course of conduct designed to conceal the true 
value and source of the compensation he received for services provided to the 
Catholic Diocese of Cleveland, that he failed to accurately report his income to the 
IRS, and that during an IRS audit, his agent falsely stated that all of his sources of 
income were reported on his tax return.  Id. at ¶ 4-6.  He was convicted of one count 
of conspiracy to defraud the IRS, four counts of making false tax returns, and one 
count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede an IRS investigation.  Id. at 
¶ 5.  For these offenses, Smith was sentenced to one year and one day in federal 
prison and ordered to perform 150 hours of community service and pay restitution 
of almost $400,000 to the IRS.  Id. at ¶ 5, 7. 
{¶ 14} We found that Smith’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-
102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and 
indefinitely suspended him from the practice of law.  Id. at ¶ 8, 16.  Although we 
credited Smith for the time served under his interim felony suspension, we also 
conditioned his reinstatement on the completion of his federal supervised release 
and the execution of a final agreement for payment of restitution.  Id. at ¶ 16.  While 
Smith and Rosenfield engaged in comparable tax-evasion schemes, depriving the 
federal government of significant tax revenue, we find that Rosenfield’s scheme 
was more egregious in that it involved both his personal and business tax 
obligations and occurred over a period of more than ten years. 
January Term, 2016 
 
7
{¶ 15} Having considered Rosenfield’s misconduct, the applicable 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed for comparable 
misconduct, we agree that the appropriate sanction in this case is an indefinite 
suspension.  However, we decline to credit Rosenfield for the time served under his 
interim felony suspension. 
{¶ 16} Accordingly, Ronald Lee Rosenfield is indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio and shall not receive credit for the time served under his 
interim felony suspension.  Any future reinstatement of his license to practice law 
in this state shall be conditioned upon his compliance with the terms of his criminal 
probation and his full compliance with the terms of a payment plan approved by 
the IRS for the satisfaction of his restitution obligation.  Upon reinstatement, 
Rosenfield shall serve a three-year period of monitored probation in accordance 
with Gov.Bar R. V(21) to ensure that he complies with his IRS-approved restitution 
plan and properly files and pays all employment and unemployment taxes for his 
practice going forward.  Costs are taxed to Rosenfield. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and 
FRENCH, JJ., concur. 
O’NEILL, J., dissents and would grant the respondent credit for time served 
under interim felony suspension. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Bender, Alexander & Broome Co., L.P.A., and J. Timothy Bender, for 
respondent. 
_________________