Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Stranke

Citation: 2006-Ohio-4357

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-09-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stranke, 110 Ohio St.3d 247, 2006-Ohio-4357.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. STRANKE. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stranke,  
110 Ohio St.3d 247, 2006-Ohio-4357.] 
Attorneys – Misconduct – Conduct involving deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, or 
dishonesty – Practicing law in jurisdiction where practice is in violation 
of jurisdiction’s regulations – Neglect of an entrusted legal matter. 
(No. 2006-0731 — Submitted April 25, 2006 — Decided September 6, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-081. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Terry Lynn Stranke of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0043184, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978. 
{¶ 2} On October 10, 2005, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged 
respondent with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause 
on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Rule 11 of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The panel 
accepted the agreement and made findings of misconduct and a recommendation, 
which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent maintains his own law practice.  From October 2003 
to December 22, 2003, respondent was also affiliated with WJW Enterprises 
(“WJW”), an organization that purported to help customers save their homes from 
foreclosure.  WJW solicited customers against whom foreclosure proceedings had 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
been filed, promising assistance that included, if necessary, hiring counsel to 
represent customers in bankruptcy.  Respondent agreed to a $1,000 weekly fee for 
his appearances in United States Bankruptcy Court on behalf of WJW customers.  
WJW paid respondent approximately $5,000 under this arrangement. 
{¶ 4} While associated with WJW, respondent was not admitted to 
practice in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  Nevertheless, 
respondent represented WJW customers Shane and Cheryl Keyton and Etta Caver 
before that court.  Respondent during this time also was not in good standing with 
the Ohio bar because he had not timely paid his attorney registration fee. 
{¶ 5} The Keytons paid WJW for respondent’s services, and a WJW 
employee prepared a bankruptcy petition and other documents to file in court.  
Respondent signed these papers, including two fee applications.  The first 
indicated that the Keytons had paid him an $800 fee.  The second stated the same 
with regard to Caver, but in her case respondent prepared the papers himself.  
Respondent did not review these filings with the Keytons or Caver, and he did not 
detect various errors and omissions.  For example, respondent represented in the 
petitions that he had advised his clients of the different types of bankruptcy prior 
to filing when, in fact, he did not explain this until after the petitions were filed.  
In another omission, Caver’s petition was filed without her signature. 
{¶ 6} In November and December 2003, the bankruptcy court issued 
notices of deficient filing because respondent had not included the schedules and 
plans needed for the Chapter 13 bankruptcies sought by the Keytons and Caver.  
Respondent later also missed a creditors’ meeting in each case and did not 
respond to the bankruptcy trustees’ motions to dismiss. 
{¶ 7} On May 18, 2004, the court granted the trustee’s motion in the 
Keyton case for sanctions, ordering respondent to pay $200 and to disgorge and 
turn over his $800 fee.  Also on May 18, after a hearing at which Caver appeared 
as ordered but respondent did not, the court ordered respondent to pay $200 in the 
January Term, 2006 
3 
Caver case and to disgorge and turn over his $800 fee.  On June 8, 2004, 
respondent filed affidavits indicating his compliance with the court’s orders.  The 
bankruptcy court ultimately dismissed the Keyton bankruptcy case for 
respondent’s failure to respond to the trustee’s motion to dismiss, and it appointed 
new counsel in the Caver bankruptcy. 
{¶ 8} Respondent stipulated and the board found that in representing the 
Keytons and Caver, he had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 3-101(B) (a 
lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation 
of regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction), and 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer 
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him).  Also with respect to the 
Keytons, respondent stipulated and the board found a violation of DR 3-102(A) (a 
lawyer shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 9} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
board weighed the stipulated mitigating and aggravating factors of his case.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  In mitigation, the board found that respondent had no prior 
record of professional discipline, had not acted out of dishonesty or selfishness, 
had made timely and good faith efforts to pay sanctions and to disgorge funds as 
ordered, and had cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a) through (d).  In aggravation, the board found that respondent had 
committed multiple offenses.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d). 
{¶ 10} The parties advocated that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for six months.  Adopting the panel’s report, the board 
recommended a six-month suspension. 
Review 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶11} We adopt the board’s findings that respondent violated DR l-
102(A)(4), 3-101(B), 3-102(A), and 6-101(A)(3).  We also find a six-month 
suspension appropriate. 
{¶12} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for six months.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Timothy T. Brick, J. Colin Knisely, and Jeremy C. Cheung, for 
respondent. 
______________________