Title: Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mazzocco

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mazzocco, 85 Ohio St.3d 399, 1999-Ohio-277.] 
 
 
 
 
 
Lake County Bar Association v. Mazzocco. 
[Cite as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mazzocco (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 399.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Failing to maintain 
separate identifiable bank accounts for client funds — Failing to maintain 
records of client funds coming into attorney’s possession — Using client 
trust funds for personal and business expenses — Failing to register timely 
with the Supreme Court for the three biennial periods from 1985 through 
1991 — Failing to register for the biennial registration periods from 1991 
through 1997 — Engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude — 
Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — 
Intentionally prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional 
relationship. 
(No. 98-2643 — Submitted January 27, 1999 — Decided April 28, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, Nos. 95-48 and 97-52. 
 
On June 5, 1995, relator, Lake County Bar Association, filed a complaint 
initiating case No. 95-48, in which it charged respondent, Anthony R. Mazzocco of 
Mentor, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0031379, with violating several 
Disciplinary Rules.  On June 16, 1997, Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint 
initiating case No. 97-52, charging respondent with other disciplinary violations.  
On November 3, 1997, respondent filed an answer in case No. 97-52.  On 
November 19, 1997, the two cases were consolidated, and the Lake County Bar 
Association was designated as the sole relator.  On May 18, 1998, relator filed an 
amended complaint in case No. 95-48, and respondent filed his answer on June 10, 
1998. 
 
 
2
 
At a hearing on July 20, 1998, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) granted relator’s 
motion to dismiss eight counts in the consolidated cases, and respondent admitted 
to the violations in counts three and four in case No. 95-48 and counts one and 
three in case No. 97-52. 
 
With respect to case No. 95-48, the panel found as follows.  In July 1989, 
respondent was appointed guardian for Marion Santarelli.  After Santarelli’s death, 
respondent failed to file a final accounting or relinquish the funds of the estate to 
the executor, and respondent’s check to Gateway Family Home for the care of 
Santarelli was returned for insufficient funds.  During the guardianship, respondent 
did not maintain separate and identifiable bank accounts for client funds, nor did 
he maintain complete records of all client funds coming into his possession.  
Moreover, respondent used his client’s funds in the amount of $88, 136.94 for his 
own personal and business expenses. 
 
With respect to count one of case No. 97-52, the panel found that Eleanor E. 
Castrovince, respondent’s long-time client, had granted him a general power of 
attorney.  One day before Castrovince’s death, respondent wrote three checks 
payable to himself from her checking account in the total amount of $2,500.  Three 
days after her death, he wrote another check to himself from the same account for 
$2,600.  In the year preceding Castrovince’s death, respondent without authority 
wrote checks to himself totaling $45,000.  Subsequently Castrovice’s estate 
obtained a judgment against respondent for $39,570. 
 
The panel found that with respect to count three of case No. 97-52, 
respondent failed to register timely with the Supreme Court for the three biennial 
periods from 1985 through 1991 and failed to register at all for the biennial 
registration periods from 1991 through 1997. 
 
 
3
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct in counts three and four of 
case No. 95-48 violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 9-102(A) (failing to deposit all 
funds of clients in one or more identifiable bank accounts separate from the funds 
of the lawyer or law firm), and (B)(3) (failing to maintain complete records and 
appropriately account for all funds of a client in the lawyer’s possession).  With 
respect to his conduct in count one of case No. 97-52, the panel found that 
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral 
turpitude), (4), and (6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 7-101(A)(3) (intentionally prejudicing or 
damaging a client during the course of the professional relationship), and 9-
102(B)(3).  The panel further concluded with respect to count three of case No. 97-
52 that respondent’s failures to register and late registrations with the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court violated Gov.Bar R. VI (registration of attorneys). 
 
In mitigation the panel noted that relator was able to verify respondent’s 
payment of  $50,136.94 to the Santarelli estate and an additional payment of 
$38,000 to the estate by respondent’s bonding company.  Also, respondent was 
currently repaying the bonding company on a monthly basis.  The panel was not 
able to verify respondent’s claim that he had paid any of the $39,570 that he owed 
to the Castrovince estate.  The panel did find that respondent was currently 
registered as an attorney.  Finally, the panel received respondent’s 
acknowledgement that from 1988 through the early 1990s he indulged in alcohol 
“to the point of excess,” and at the time of the hearing before the panel had sought 
help and was considering contacting the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
(“OLAP”). 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation 
 
 
4
of the panel, and further recommended that respondent enter into and comply with 
the conditions of OLAP and also make full restitution. 
__________________ 
 
David J. Sternberg, for relator. 
 
Anthony R. Mazzocco, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  With respect to case No. 95-48, we adopt the facts found by 
the board that relator did not maintain separate identifiable bank accounts for client 
funds, that he failed to maintain records of client funds coming into his possession, 
and that he used $88,136.94 in client trust funds for his personal and business 
expenses. 
 
We do not adopt the board’s factual findings that respondent failed to file a 
final account or turn over assets in the Santarelli case or that he issued a check to 
the Gateway Family Home for insufficient funds because those allegations were a 
part of count two in case No. 95-48, and that count was dismissed by the relator.  
We therefore adopt only the board’s conclusion in case No. 95-48 that 
respondent’s conduct violated DR 9-102(A) and (B)(3), in that he converted and 
commingled client and personal monies. 
 
We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board in case No. 97-52. 
 
Because public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that 
the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases, we have previously 
held that absent mitigating circumstances, disbarment is the appropriate sanction 
when a fiduciary misuses the assets of an estate.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw 
(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 462, 700 N.E.2d 858.  Where sufficient mitigating 
circumstances exist, and the board recommends it, we have, on occasion, imposed 
a lesser penalty. Disciplinary Counsel v. Kurtz (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 55, 693 
N.E.2d 1080; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Knowlton (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 76, 689 
 
 
5
N.E.2d 538.  We do so in this case.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio, with his reinstatement conditioned upon his 
making full restitution, with interest at the current judgment rate, in the 
Castrovince and Santarelli matters.  Cost are taxed to respondent. 
 Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents and would disbar respondent.