Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Lantz

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lantz, 102 Ohio St.3d 93, 2004-Ohio-1806.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LANTZ. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lantz, 102 Ohio St.3d 93, 2004-Ohio-1806.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Engaging in a 
continuous course of neglect and misappropriation without restitution — 
Failing to cooperate in investigation of grievances. 
(No. 2003-0699 — Submitted June 4, 2003 — Resubmitted January 12, 2004 — 
Decided April 28, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-36. 
_____________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Charles J. Lantz of Lancaster, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0016201, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1975.  On May 1, 
2002, we suspended his license to practice law indefinitely because he failed to 
account for several clients’ funds and other property, did not provide clients the 
representation that he had promised, and acted dishonestly.  Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Lantz, 95 Ohio St.3d 132, 2002-Ohio-1757, 766 N.E.2d 593.1  On June 17, 
2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with 11 more counts of 
professional misconduct, none of which was the subject of the previous 
disciplinary case. 
{¶2} 
Respondent was served with the complaint but did not answer.  An 
investigator hand-delivered another copy of the complaint with a letter stating that 
                                                 
1.  At that time, respondent’s license was already under an interim suspension because of his 
conviction of five felonies involving theft or passing bad checks.  In re Lantz (2001), 93 Ohio 
St.3d 1407, 754 N.E.2d 256.  Facts underlying two of those felonies were at issue in the earlier 
disciplinary action, while facts underlying at least one other felony are implicated by the 
misconduct charged in this case.  See State v. Lantz (July 15, 2002), 5th Dist. No. 01 CA 38, 2002-
Ohio-3838, 2002 WL 1729910. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
relator would file a default motion if respondent did not respond.  Respondent 
promised to “take care of” the matter at that time but never responded.  Relator 
moved for default under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  The Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline then appointed a master commissioner to consider the 
motion and make findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation. 
{¶3} 
With respect to Count I, evidence established that in October 2000, 
respondent drafted a check to a client for $4,750 in settlement proceeds.  He drew 
the check on an IOLTA account other than the one in which he had deposited the 
settlement proceeds.  The check was dishonored for insufficient funds.  And in 
June 2001, respondent was convicted of stealing over $4,000 from this client, 
among other crimes.  The master commissioner found that respondent had thereby 
violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (forbidding illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 
(4) (forbidding conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 
(5) (forbidding conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and (6) 
(forbidding conduct adversely reflecting on the attorney’s fitness to practice law); 
7-101(A)(3) (barring an attorney from causing damage or prejudice to a client); 
and 9-102(A) (forbidding commingling of personal and client funds), (B)(3) 
(requiring an attorney to render appropriate accounts) and (4) (requiring an 
attorney to promptly return client’s funds). 
{¶4} 
Evidence in support of Count Two established that another client 
paid respondent $250 in 1998 with the understanding that respondent would in 
turn help him obtain an order changing custody of one of his sons.  The client and 
his ex-wife executed an agreed entry in respondent’s office, but respondent never 
filed the entry in court.  In 2001, the client paid respondent another $550 to draw 
up documents necessary to change custody of the client’s younger son, but 
respondent did not file these papers either.  Respondent also never repaid any of 
the client’s $800.  For these acts, the master commissioner found respondent in 
violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6); 2-110(A)(2) (requiring an attorney to 
January Term, 2004 
3 
promptly return client’s property); 6-101(A)(3) (barring an attorney from 
neglecting an entrusted legal matter); and 7-101(A)(2) (requiring an attorney to 
carry out a contract for professional services). 
{¶5} 
With respect to Count Three, evidence established that another 
client paid respondent $1,500 in October 2000 for representation in another 
custody case.  Respondent filed for a continuance but did nothing else on the 
client’s behalf.  The client stated that he had no resources to hire another attorney, 
and he ultimately lost custody of his son because of respondent’s neglect.  The 
master commissioner found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 
6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(2) and (3). 
{¶6} 
Evidence in support of Count Four established that in January 
2000, another client paid respondent $1,500 to represent her in a divorce.  
Afterward, the client was unable to contact respondent despite repeated attempts.  
Respondent also did not file proposed conclusions of law as requested by the 
presiding judge or return the client’s file as requested.  For these acts, the master 
commissioner found respondent in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), and 
2-101(A)(2) (sic, 2-110[A][2]). 
{¶7} 
With respect to Count Five, evidence established that respondent 
attempted in June 2001 to pay taxes and fees for a motor vehicle title by using a 
check drawn on an IOLTA account that did not contain sufficient funds.  The 
master commissioner found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(6) 
and 9-102(A). 
{¶8} 
Evidence in support of Count Six established that a client paid 
respondent $5,750 to represent the client in a paternity and child-support dispute.  
Respondent ignored the client’s attempts to contact him, did not file necessary 
paperwork, and failed to appear as scheduled in court.  For these acts, the master 
commissioner found respondent in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6), 2-110(A)(2), 6-
101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(2) and (3). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶9} 
With respect to Count Seven, the evidence established that in 
August 2000, a client paid respondent $3,000 to represent her in a criminal case.  
Respondent did not respond to the client’s repeated efforts to contact him, and the 
client was later arrested.  After the arrest, respondent asked for more money, and 
the client paid an additional $1,800.  Respondent made one court appearance but 
did nothing else on the client’s behalf.  The client later fired respondent and 
retained other counsel.  Afterward, respondent ignored the client’s requests for an 
accounting, failed to refund any unearned fees, and did not return the client’s file.  
The master commissioner found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(6), 2-110(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(2). 
{¶10} Evidence in support of Count Eight established that in or before 
October 1999, another client paid respondent $1,750 to represent the client in 
post-conviction proceedings.  Respondent failed to file necessary papers and 
failed to respond to his client’s requests for information.  The client was forced to 
retain other counsel.  For these acts, the master commissioner found respondent in 
violation of DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(2).2 
{¶11} With respect to Count Nine, the evidence established that 
respondent agreed in or before November 2000 to represent another client in a 
criminal proceeding.  Respondent was unprepared for trial, failed to file an appeal 
as promised, and did not return the client’s telephone calls.  For these acts, the 
master commissioner found respondent in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-
101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(2).3 
{¶12} Evidence in support of Count Ten established that relator sent 
various certified letters of inquiry concerning client grievances to respondent, 
sometimes in care of the attorney who represented him in Disciplinary Counsel v. 
                                                 
2.  The master commissioner also determined that respondent had violated DR 2-110(A)(2), but 
the evidence submitted does not substantiate this in connection with Count Eight. 
3.  The master commissioner also found a violation of DR 2-110(A)(2) in connection with Count 
Nine, but the record also does not substantiate this. 
January Term, 2004 
5 
Lantz, 95 Ohio St.3d 132, 2002-Ohio-1757, 766 N.E.2d 593.  However, 
respondent apparently never formally retained his former counsel to defend him 
against the latest complaint.  Even so, respondent or an agent signed the certified 
receipt for five of these letters, and still he did not reply as directed.  In addition, 
relator asserts that although respondent appeared in response to a subpoena duces 
tecum, he did not bring with him the records that he was directed to produce.  The 
master commissioner concluded that respondent had thereby violated Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) (requiring lawyers to cooperate in an investigation of misconduct). 
{¶13} With respect to Count Eleven, the master commissioner found that 
respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. VI, based on evidence that respondent had 
not registered as required for the 2001-2002 biennium. 
{¶14} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
master commissioner found that there were no evident mitigating factors.  The 
master commissioner considered as aggravating circumstances that respondent’s 
disciplinary infractions were similar to those for which his law license was 
already under indefinite suspension, that this proved a pattern of misconduct, and 
that respondent had offered little assistance in relator’s investigation.  See Section 
10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  The 
master commissioner thus accepted the sanction suggested by relator and 
recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred.  The board adopted the 
panel’s findings of misconduct and the recommendation.4 
{¶15} We agree that respondent committed the cited misconduct and 
concur in the board’s recommendation.  “Disbarment is ordinarily the sanction 
                                                 
4.  Upon certification of the board’s report, we reviewed the board’s records and found 
correspondence suggesting that respondent might qualify for a mental illness suspension.  We 
consequently remanded this cause to the board for further investigation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(7).  99 Ohio St.3d 1522, 2003-Ohio-4161, 792 N.E.2d 1136.  The investigation, conducted with 
respondent’s consent, revealed no medical evidence of mental illness. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
when an attorney’s misconduct permeates his practice in the way that 
respondent’s misconduct did in this case.”  Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brickley, 
97 Ohio St.3d 285, 2002-Ohio-6416, 779 N.E.2d 750, ¶ 24 (violations included 
DR 1-102[A][4], 1-102[A][5], 1-102[A][6], 6-101[A][3], 7-101[A][3], and 9-
102[B][4]).  See, also, Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Glatki (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 381, 
384, 726 N.E.2d 993  (“As we have consistently held, the normal sanction for 
misappropriation of client funds coupled with neglect of client matters is 
disbarment”). 
{¶16} Here, respondent engaged in a continuous course of neglect and 
misappropriation without restitution and then failed to cooperate in the 
investigation of grievances.  Disbarment is in order.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897.  Respondent is therefore 
permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kevin L. Williams, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________