Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Lantz

Citation: 2002-Ohio-1757

Docket Number: 20012175

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lantz, 95 Ohio St.3d 132, 2002-Ohio-1757.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LANTZ. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lantz, 95 Ohio St.3d 132, 2002-Ohio-1757.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Failing to promptly 
deliver to client funds to which client is entitled — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Failing to maintain 
complete records of all client funds and render appropriate accounts 
thereof — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Damaging or 
prejudicing client during course of professional relationship — Failing 
to carry out contract of professional employment — Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. 
(No. 2001-2175 — Submitted January 30, 2002 — Decided May 1, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-17. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam 
{¶1} 
On February 14, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 
filed a seven count complaint charging respondent, Charles J. Lantz of Lancaster, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0016201, with numerous violations of the Code 
of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent answered, and the matter was referred 
to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”). 
{¶2} 
Based on evidence and stipulations received at a hearing, the panel 
found that in October 1994, Charles and Judy Smith hired respondent to represent 
them in a personal injury matter arising from an automobile accident a year 
earlier.  In February and March 1997, respondent received and placed in his trust 
account the settlement of $300,000 that he had negotiated on behalf of the Smiths.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Although respondent paid the Smiths $60,000 of the settlement in March 1997, he 
did not pay any of the Smiths’ creditors, including medical providers, the amounts 
to which they were subrogated until they threatened to file suit in November 
1998.  Then, in that month, he wrote five checks on his trust account totaling 
approximately $140,000, one of which, in the amount of $76,188, was payable to 
the Smiths.  Another check, in the amount of $59,000, written to a creditor, was 
dishonored twice in December 1998 because of insufficient funds in respondent’s 
trust account.  After the creditor-payee contacted the Lancaster Police Department 
about the dishonored checks and relator wrote a letter of inquiry to respondent 
about them, respondent issued a cashier’s check to the creditor.  Respondent did 
not respond to a letter of inquiry or to repeated inquiries by relator seeking 
information about his trust account.  Ultimately, relator obtained a subpoena 
duces tecum directed to respondent, but respondent did not appear at the 
scheduled deposition. 
{¶3} 
The panel concluded that by his inordinate delay in distributing the 
Smith settlement funds, respondent violated DR 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall 
promptly deliver to the client funds or property to which the client is entitled) and 
1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The panel also concluded that respondent’s 
failure to keep accurate records regarding his trust account violated DR 9-
102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds of a client 
coming into the lawyer’s possession and render appropriate accounts thereof), and 
his failure to make prompt payment to the medical providers violated DR 6-
101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter).  Further, the 
panel concluded that respondent’s failure to promptly pay his clients their share of 
the settlement caused them to lose interest that may have accrued.  As a result of 
this, respondent violated DR 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not prejudice or damage 
his client during the course of the professional relationship). 
January Term, 2002 
3 
{¶4} 
In addition, the panel concluded that respondent’s failure to 
cooperate with relator’s investigation of his trust fund account violated Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in an 
investigation or hearing).  And it concluded that respondent again violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) after finding that he failed to respond to nine separate letters 
of inquiry from relator concerning other clients. 
{¶5} 
The panel also found that after Mark Cook hired respondent in 
March 1999 and paid him a $500 retainer to adjust a child support obligation, 
Cook was unable to communicate with respondent.  Respondent did not return 
any of the several telephone calls that Cook had made to his office and did not 
respond to Cook’s letters, although he received at least one of them before he was 
incarcerated in May 1999 on an earlier conviction for driving while intoxicated.  
It also found that although respondent had filed nothing on Cook’s behalf, he did 
not return Cook’s retainer when requested.  The panel concluded that 
respondent’s conduct in the Cook matter violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 
7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract of professional 
employment), and 7-101(A)(3). 
{¶6} 
The panel further found that in June 1997, Phyllis G. Scott hired 
respondent to obtain a divorce.  Respondent took five antique guns as a retainer 
but failed to give Scott any receipt for them or keep a record of them himself.  At 
a hearing in August 1997, the court awarded Scott’s husband the temporary 
possession of a travel trailer.  Shortly thereafter, Scott discharged respondent and 
asked for an accounting of his services.  Respondent did not provide the 
accounting, claiming that Scott never asked him for a final bill or discussed in 
person that he terminated his services.  The panel found otherwise.  Moreover, at 
the hearing before the panel, respondent estimated that his time in the Scott matter 
was worth $4,000.  Respondent claimed that he had received only three or four 
guns and that they were appraised from photographs at $1,250. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶7} 
The panel concluded that respondent lied both about his 
termination by Scott and about Scott’s request for an accounting, and in so lying 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  The panel also concluded that 
respondent’s failure to keep records with respect to the guns and their value 
violated DR 9-102(B)(3). 
{¶8} 
The panel found numerous aggravating circumstances, including 
respondent’s failure to make restitution of $500 to Cook.  In mitigation, the panel 
found that respondent had no record of prior disciplinary actions, and selfishness 
and dishonesty did not seem to have motivated his conduct.  The respondent 
presented a number of character witnesses in his behalf. 
{¶9} 
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
{¶10} On 
review, 
we 
adopt 
the 
findings, 
conclusions, 
and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kevin L. Williams, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Thomas M. Tyack, for respondent. 
__________________