Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Lorenzon

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Lorenzon, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4713.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-4713 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LORENZON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lorenzon,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4713.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Permitting others to use attorney-registration number 
and electronic signature—Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law—Stayed six-month suspension. 
(No. 2011-2184—Submitted March 7, 2012—Decided October 16, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-044. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jason Todd Lorenzon of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0082510, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2007.  
On June 14, 2010, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint charging 
Lorenzon with multiple violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct 
arising from his “of counsel” relationship with a Florida law firm that negotiates 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
debt on behalf of consumers.  Lorenzon answered the complaint, admitting many 
of the factual allegations in the complaint but denying that his conduct violated 
the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. 
{¶ 2} At the September 2011 hearing conducted by a panel of the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, the parties submitted stipulated 
findings of fact, mitigation, and aggravation, as well as 11 stipulated exhibits.  
Respondent testified and submitted 12 letters attesting to his good character and 
reputation. 
{¶ 3} Of the multiple violations alleged in relator’s complaint, the panel 
found only that Lorenzon’s conduct in permitting the Florida law firm to use his 
electronic signature and attorney-registration number with no restrictions violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and recommended that 
he receive a six-month stayed suspension for that conduct.  The panel 
recommended that the remaining allegations in relator’s complaint be dismissed. 
{¶ 4} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct and 
its recommended sanction, and there are no objections to this recommendation.  
We adopt those findings and agree that a six-month stayed suspension is the 
appropriate sanction for Lorenzon’s misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} On September 15, 2008, Lorenzon entered into an “of counsel” 
agreement with Consumer Law Group, P.A. (“CLG”), a Florida law firm that 
negotiates debt on behalf of consumers.  The agreement provided that Lorenzon 
would be paid $1,000 annually to serve as local counsel for CLG and that he 
would execute a contract with each Ohio client.  To facilitate the execution of the 
contracts, the agreement required Lorenzon to provide CLG with his electronic 
signature and Ohio attorney-registration number.  The agreement specified that 
Lorenzon’s only duty to Ohio clients was to engage in “episodic phone calls 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
wherein [he] may be needed to answer client questions from time to time”—a 
duty that CLG estimated would require no more than three hours per year—and 
expressly provided that Lorenzon would not be obligated to represent the clients 
in court or before any agency or panel. 
{¶ 6} Lorenzon received the $1,000 payment and provided his electronic 
signature and attorney-registration number to CLG in September 2008.  He was 
not aware of any contracts with CLG clients until after Floyd and Mary Brown 
sued him and CLG in May 2009 to terminate a November 2008 contract with 
CLG.  Lorenzon was the only representative of CLG identified in the Browns’ 
contract, and in addition to his name, the document bore his electronic signature 
and Ohio attorney-registration number.  The Browns settled their claims against 
respondent and the owner of CLG, Michael L. Metzner, on June 1, 2009, and 
received a full refund. 
{¶ 7} Lorenzon later learned that CLG had used his name, electronic 
signature, and attorney-registration number to enter into at least three other 
contracts without his knowledge.  He testified that he understood that he would be 
responsible for overseeing all of CLG’s Ohio client cases to ensure that their 
representation was in accordance with the “Ohio ethics rules” and in their best 
interests. 
{¶ 8} Lorenzon testified that he approved a blank form contract that 
CLG was to use for Ohio clients and explained that he thought he was to receive 
every contract by e-mail, approve it, and send it back to CLG, where his 
electronic signature would be affixed to the contract.  He thought this procedure 
would be easier and require less time than actually signing each contract, 
scanning it, and sending it back to CLG.  He admitted, however, that his contract 
with CLG did not specify that he was to review each individual contract and that 
it authorized CLG to apply or use his signature on correspondence and forms that 
he had preapproved. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 9} The panel and board found that Lorenzon violated Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h) as alleged in Count One of the complaint, by giving CLG his electronic 
signature and attorney-registration number without placing restrictions on how 
they could be used.  They recommend, however, that we dismiss an alleged 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating or 
attempting to violate the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct) and all of the 
allegations in Counts Two through Six of relator’s complaint—some on relator’s 
motion, and others on the insufficiency of the evidence. 
{¶ 10} We adopt these findings of fact and find by clear and convincing 
evidence that Lorenzon has violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  We also adopt the 
board’s recommendation to dismiss the remaining allegations of relator’s 
complaint. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} 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, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 12} The parties stipulated and the board found that the absence of a 
prior disciplinary record, Lorenzon’s full and free disclosure to the board, and his 
cooperative attitude toward the proceedings should be considered in mitigation of 
sanction.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  Lorenzon also submitted 12 
letters from attorneys, family, and friends attesting to his good character and 
integrity apart from the charged misconduct, as well as his professional skills.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e).  Although the parties did not stipulate to any 
aggravating factors, the board expressed its concern that Lorenzon felt that he had 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
been victimized by Metzner and found that he did not acknowledge the 
wrongfulness of his own conduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g). 
{¶ 13} Relator sought a public reprimand for Lorenzon’s misconduct, 
while Lorenzon argued that the complaint should be dismissed. 
{¶ 14} The panel and board note that we have not previously disciplined 
an attorney for relinquishing his electronic signature and attorney-registration 
number to a third party for use on preapproved correspondence and forms.  We 
have, however, sanctioned attorneys who have failed to properly supervise their 
employees.  In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Watson, 106 Ohio St.3d 298, 2005-Ohio-
4983, 834 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 4, we found that a bedridden attorney aided the 
unauthorized practice of law and neglected a client matter when he instructed his 
paralegal to draft legal pleadings for his review and signature and failed to 
properly supervise the paralegal, who then drafted the documents, signed the 
attorney’s name to them, and filed them in court without the attorney’s consent.  
For this misconduct, and for failing to advise a client that his professional-liability 
insurance had lapsed, we imposed a six-month suspension, all stayed on 
conditions. 
{¶ 15} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Maley, 119 Ohio St.3d 217, 2008-Ohio-
3923, 893 N.E.2d 180, ¶ 4, 23, we imposed an 18-month suspension, with six 
months stayed on conditions, after a secretary used the attorney’s name and office 
to prepare and file various bankruptcy pleadings and respond to notices and letters 
from bankruptcy trustees without the attorney’s knowledge or consent.  We noted: 
 
Respondent’s lax supervision of his employee allowed her 
to use respondent’s credit card, his bankruptcy court credentials, 
and his reputation to the detriment of his clients and the court.  
Appropriate oversight of his practice could have prevented her 
misconduct.  If respondent had read his e-mail notifications from 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
the bankruptcy court, reviewed his bank statements and credit card 
charges, and reviewed his files on a regular basis, he would have 
known that something was wrong. 
 
Id. at ¶ 20.  While recognizing an attorney’s need to delegate some tasks, we have 
insisted that attorney’s provide ample supervision to ensure that those tasks are 
completed properly.  Id. at ¶ 21, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball, 67 Ohio 
St.3d 401, 404, 618 N.E.2d 159 (1993). 
{¶ 16} Here, there is no allegation that Lorenzon failed to adequately 
supervise his own staff.  Rather, the evidence demonstrates that in exchange for 
$1,000, he provided his electronic signature and Ohio attorney-registration 
number for use by a Florida-based corporation.  Although Lorenzon claims to 
have relied upon Metzner’s oral representations that he would see each contract 
before his electronic signature would be affixed, those representations were not 
incorporated into the contract, which provides: “Attorney shall execute all ‘Debt 
Settlement’ or ‘Negotiation’ agreements with potential clients in Ohio.  Toward 
that end, upon execution of this Agreement, Attorney shall email Company an 
electronic signature to be used on correspondence and forms that have been pre-
approved by Attorney.” 
{¶ 17} Lorenzon admitted that he had preapproved the blank form that 
was to be used for every Ohio client and acknowledged that the contract with 
CLG did not require his approval for every individual debt-negotiation contract.  
Thus, Lorenzon provided his electronic signature without retaining any 
appreciable means to control or supervise its use.  His only justification for the 
arrangement was to save the time that it would otherwise have taken him to sign 
each individual contract, scan it, and send it back to CLG—a process that he 
estimated would delay contract execution by a couple of hours.  One panel 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
member likened the process to giving CLG “what amounts to your ATM 
identification and your pin number.” 
{¶ 18} Because an attorney’s signature, whether actual or electronic, 
affixed to a document along with an attorney-registration number reflects personal 
assent to or approval of a document, the attorney must jealously guard its use to 
protect innocent third parties as well as the attorney’s own reputation. 
{¶ 19} Here, Lorenzon’s failure to properly supervise the use of his 
signature exposed him to unanticipated professional liability at the hands of an 
allegedly unscrupulous person.  But more importantly, by loaning his good name 
without retaining adequate control over its use, he exposed vulnerable and 
unsuspecting Ohio consumers to the questionable practices of an out-of-state 
debt-negotiation firm. 
{¶ 20} Based upon this conduct, we agree that Lorenzon engaged in 
conduct that adversely reflects upon his fitness to practice law, in violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  And although we agree that the facts of this case are unique, 
we find that Lorenzon’s conduct and the attendant risk of harm to third parties are 
analogous to cases in which attorneys have failed to properly supervise their 
employees.  In recognition of the mitigating factors in this case and the absence of 
any evidence to show that any clients were harmed, we agree that a six-month 
stayed suspension is the appropriate sanction for Lorenzon’s misconduct. 
{¶ 21} Accordingly, Jason Todd Lorenzon is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for six months, all stayed on the condition that he commit 
no further misconduct.  If Lorenzon fails to comply with the condition of the stay, 
the stay will be lifted, and he shall serve the full six-month suspension.  Costs are 
taxed to Lorenzon. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather Hissom 
Coglianese, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 Jason Todd Lorenzon, pro se. 
______________________