Case Title: Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rozanc

Citation: 2009-Ohio-4207

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-08-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rozanc, 123 Ohio St.3d 78, 2009-Ohio-4207.] 
 
 
LAKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROZANC. 
[Cite as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rozanc, 123 Ohio St.3d 78, 2009-Ohio-4207.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client — Failure to communicate with a 
client — One-year suspension with conditional six-month stay. 
(No. 2009-0679 ⎯ Submitted June 6, 2009 ⎯ Decided August 27, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-033. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Frank J. Rozanc of Eastlake, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0047173, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1990.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
suspend respondent’s license to practice for one year, staying the last six months 
of the suspension on remedial conditions, based on findings that he failed to 
diligently represent and properly communicate with a client serving as the 
executor of a decedent’s estate.  We accept the board’s findings that respondent 
committed this professional misconduct and the recommendation for a one-year 
suspension and six-month conditional stay. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Lake County Bar Association, charged respondent in a 
one-count complaint with violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client) and 1.4 
(requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter and comply as soon as practicable with any reasonable requests for 
information from the client [subsections (a)(3) and (4)]).  A panel of three board 
members heard the case, including the parties’ stipulations to the cited 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
misconduct, and made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation 
for the one-year license suspension with a six-month conditional stay.  The board 
adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶ 3} The parties have not objected to the board’s report. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The charges against respondent stemmed from his representation 
of a client serving as executor of his mother’s estate.  Respondent and the client 
initially met several times in March or April 2007 at respondent’s apartment, 
where he then had his business office, to discuss the estate and probate process.  
In mid-June 2007, the client, who had never before hired an attorney, paid 
respondent $500 in legal fees and $161 for probate court filing fees.  The client 
also signed papers seeking to release the estate from probate administration.  
Respondent, however, never filed these documents in probate court, and at the 
panel hearing, he admitted to having done nothing else for his client. 
{¶ 5} Describing the extent of respondent’s neglect, the client testified 
that he heard from respondent “once or twice” by phone immediately after what 
turned out to be their last meeting but then never heard from him again.  Calls to 
inquire about the status of the case and to see whether copies of the will had been 
mailed to siblings were not returned.  The client called respondent initially once a 
week and, after several weeks passed, four to five times a week, always asking for 
a return call and never receiving a response.  The client eventually left messages 
asking respondent to return the mother’s will, even calling on weekends, still to 
no avail.  The client stopped short of going to respondent’s apartment, fearing that 
he would get “in trouble for harassment” for trying to see him at home. 
{¶ 6} In conceding the serious and inexcusable failures on his part, 
respondent testified before the panel that he had become uncertain of whether the 
estate should be handled “via a release of administration or a more summary 
procedure.”  His research produced no definitive answer, and he felt he had no 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
other lawyer to ask.  Respondent said that at that point, he “basically panicked and 
failed to do anything else.” 
{¶ 7} In late October 2007, after nearly four and one-half months trying 
to reach respondent, the client hired a new attorney.  The new attorney called 
respondent once or twice, but respondent did not return any call from her.  He 
claimed at the panel hearing that a message she left was “garbled” and 
unintelligible.  The new attorney also wrote to respondent twice, asking that he 
deliver the will and return the balance of fees advanced by the client.  She 
received no response.  Respondent claimed that he did not receive her letters. 
{¶ 8} Respondent’s inaction held up proceedings in the estate until April 
2008.  The delay in opening the estate eventually caused several of the client’s 
sisters to call the new attorney and complain.  The sisters, who had become 
increasingly mistrustful of the lack of progress in the estate, also blamed their 
brother for the delay. 
{¶ 9} The client ultimately filed a grievance with relator.  Upon 
receiving a letter of inquiry in February 2008, respondent called the investigator, 
admitting that he had “screwed up” and had not known what to do to fix the 
situation.  Respondent, who is disabled and unable to drive, agreed to drop off the 
will and related documents because the investigator feared that the documents 
could get lost in the mail.  Respondent failed to drop off the papers, leaving the 
investigator to call his disconnected telephone three times during March 2008 and 
to write him two more letters, the last certified. 
{¶ 10} The investigator finally received the original will in early April 
2008 ⎯ by mail ⎯ along with respondent’s check to the client for $686.  During 
the panel hearing, respondent attributed his delay to a desire to return the papers 
and a refund at the same time and to his having misplaced his client trust account 
checkbook for several weeks.  Included in the $686 payment to his former client 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
was an extra $25, intended to compensate the client for having to find new 
counsel. 
{¶ 11} Respondent admitted that these acts and omissions violated his 
duties to diligently represent and communicate with his client as reasonably 
necessary under the circumstances.  We thus find clear and convincing evidence 
that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4(a)(3) and (4). 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors in respondent’s case and reviewed 
sanctions imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 13} As to mitigation, the board accepted the parties’ stipulations that 
respondent had no prior disciplinary record, was not driven by dishonest or selfish 
motives, and had made restitution to his client.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), 
(b), and (c).  Adopting the panel’s report, the board also observed that respondent 
was a cooperative participant in this disciplinary proceeding.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d).  The board did not find a mitigating mental disability 
under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(i) through (iv), however, despite 
respondent’s testimony concerning his depressed mental state. 
{¶ 14} Respondent referred to a “general depression” that started “after 
[he] lost the office in January of ’07 and onward.”  After his office closed, he had 
difficulty in obtaining new clients and getting existing clients to pay him.  
Respondent once saw a counselor, who he said “did not seem to believe it was 
anything chemical” but rather thought that it was more related to “what [he] was 
involved in.”  Respondent could not recall the counselor’s qualifications and 
testified that the counselor did not perform any testing, that they “just had 
conversation,” and that he did not have any follow-up visits despite the 
counselor’s recommendation. 
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
{¶ 15} Respondent did not present any other evidence to satisfy the four-
pronged test in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g), which requires proof of (i) a 
diagnosis of mental disability by a qualified health-care professional, (ii) a 
determination that mental disability contributed to cause the misconduct, (iii) a 
sustained period of successful treatment, and (iv) a prognosis from a qualified 
health-care professional that the attorney will be able to return to competent, 
ethical professional practice under specified conditions.  The board therefore did 
not attribute significant mitigating effect to any claimed mental disability.  We 
accept that determination, although we share the board’s concern about 
respondent’s failure to seek help for his depressed condition. 
{¶ 16} As to aggravation, the board weighed against respondent factors 
including how he delayed in returning his former client’s original papers to the 
investigator and finally simply mailed them instead of delivering them as 
requested.  He also did not make restitution until after his client’s grievance.  His 
repeated failures to address the inquiries of his client, the client’s new lawyer, and 
relator’s investigator also showed to the board a pattern of misconduct.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. l0(B)(l)(c). 
{¶ 17} Of particular significance to the board was the harm respondent 
caused this vulnerable first-time client.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(1)(h).  
Adopting the panel’s report, the board aptly observed: 
{¶ 18} “[W]e note that while Respondent made full monetary restitution, 
his conduct caused significant emotional turmoil and intra-family strife to his 
client.  We view that damage as significant in as much as [sic] repayment of 
monetary damages in this case will likely do nothing to remediate the family 
mistrust caused by Respondent.  [The client] requested that Respondent be 
disbarred because of the stressful emotional damages caused.  The Panel, 
however, is constrained by case law and the necessity to impose a sanction 
proportional to sanctions in other similar cases.  Our failure to impose [the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
client’s] requested sanction, however, does not mean that the Panel takes lightly 
[his] injury or the fact that he and his family have paid a price that cannot be 
evaluated solely with regard to the money at issue or adequately remedied by the 
disciplinary process.” 
{¶ 19} Though the parties agreed to a public reprimand as the appropriate 
sanction, the board relied on Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Forg, 97 Ohio St.3d 495, 
2002-Ohio-6727, 780 N.E.2d 582, in recommending a one-year suspension and 
six-month stay on conditions.  Adopting the panel’s analysis, the board reasoned: 
{¶ 20} “In Forg, the attorney accepted a $1,000 retainer and $250 filing 
fee to represent a client in the dissolution of her marriage.  After depositing the 
funds in her client trust account, Forg used the funds for her own purposes and 
failed to respond for over four months to her client’s phone calls and letters about 
the case.  Upon receipt of a settlement proposal and actuarial report from her 
client’s husband, Forg neglected to forward either document to her client.  Forg 
also ignored her client’s request to return her file and any unused funds.  Forg 
returned the client’s money to her only after she filed a grievance, and did not 
return the client’s file.  Forg also failed to respond to the Cincinnati Bar 
Association’s grievance complaint.  Forg was found to have neglected a legal 
matter entrusted to her, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, used client 
funds for her own purposes, inappropriately accounted for those funds, and failed 
to promptly pay or return to the client funds or property that the client was 
entitled to receive. Forg was suspended from practice for one year, with six 
months stayed. 
{¶ 21} “As in Forg, Respondent is before us on only one client’s 
complaint, but a complaint alleging a complete lack of communication with that 
one client and a failure to return the client’s funds and documents despite repeated 
requests. Though there was not an allegation related to the inappropriate use of 
client funds in this case, Respondent’s admission that he was unable to locate his 
January Term, 2009 
7 
 
trust checkbook and was unsure of his account balance suggests to this Panel that 
Respondent’s IOLTA account was not well managed.  Both Respondent and Forg 
returned their client’s funds after a grievance was filed.  Unlike Forg, however, 
Respondent returned his client’s documents and participated throughout the 
disciplinary process. 
{¶ 22} “However, we find Respondent’s case permeated by a larger 
problem related to possible depression and physical difficulties.  Respondent 
failed to address such circumstances or explain how he intended to improve his 
office management * * *.  It is clear to the Panel that, if sanctioned by a public 
reprimand as recommended by Relator, Respondent’s pattern of delay in 
attending to pending matters will persist and remain unresolved.  So, too, will his 
admitted but untreated depression.  Respondent expressed remorse for his conduct 
but appears unenthusiastic in his desire to continue in the practice of law and 
uncommitted to the steps necessary to prevent further misconduct.  Therefore, we 
recommend that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 
one year, with six months stayed upon the following conditions: 
{¶ 23} “1.  Respondent shall complete a law-office management course, 
which includes a component of instruction on managing an attorney’s IOLTA 
account and handling client communications; 
{¶ 24} “2.  Respondent shall obtain the requisite number of CLE 
[continuing legal education] credits as required to return to or maintain 
compliance with Gov.Bar R. X; 
{¶ 25} “3.  Respondent shall enter into a treatment contract with the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program [“OLAP”] for a minimum of 24 months whereby he 
is obligated to obtain a mental health assessment and pursue treatment as 
determined by OLAP; [and] 
{¶ 26} “4. Respondent [shall] commit no further misconduct during the 
six month stay.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 27} We accept the board’s recommendation, including a condition 
added by the board in adopting the panel report.  In effect, the board also 
recommended that respondent successfully complete a six-month monitored 
probation, under the supervision of an attorney appointed by relator and pursuant 
to Gov.Bar R. V(9), upon reinstatement to practice under the stayed suspension. 
{¶ 28} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for one year; however, the last six months of the suspension are stayed on 
the following conditions:   
{¶ 29} 1.  Respondent shall complete a course in law-office management 
that includes a component of instruction on managing an IOLTA account and 
handling client communications; 
{¶ 30} 2.  Respondent shall obtain the requisite number of continuing-
legal-education credits as required to return to or maintain compliance with 
Gov.Bar R. X; 
{¶ 31} 3.  Respondent shall enter into a treatment contract with the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program for a minimum of 24 months whereby he is 
obligated to obtain a mental-health assessment and pursue recommended 
treatment;  
{¶ 32} 4.  Respondent shall commit no further misconduct during the six-
month stay; and 
{¶ 33} 5. Upon reinstatement, during the stayed portion of his suspension, 
respondent shall serve a six-month monitored probation, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(9). 
{¶ 34} If respondent fails to comply with the terms of the stay, the stay 
will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire one-year suspension from 
practice.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2009 
9 
 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Rand, Gurley, Hanahan & Koerner, L.L.C., and James P. Koerner, for 
relator. 
Frank J. Rozanc, pro se. 
_____________________