Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rockmael

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rockmael, 92 Ohio St.3d 20, 2001-Ohio-147.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. ROCKMAEL. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rockmael (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 20.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Engaging in illegal 
conduct involving moral turpitude — Engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Withdrawing from 
employment and failing to promptly refund any fee paid in advance that 
was not earned — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Attempting to 
exonerate or limit liability to client for personal malpractice — Failing 
to carry out contract of employment for legal services — Damaging or 
prejudicing client during course of professional relationship — Failing 
to maintain complete records of all funds coming into possession and 
render appropriate accounts to client regarding them — Failing to 
promptly pay client funds in lawyer’s possession that client is entitled to 
receive — Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 00-2286 — Submitted January 31, 2001 — Decided May 30, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, Nos. 99-70 and 00-19. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On December 6, 1999, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar 
Association, filed a two-count complaint charging respondent, Les Evan 
Rockmael of  Parma Heights, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0065107, with 
several violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  On March 7, 2000, 
relator Cleveland Bar Association filed a three-count complaint against 
respondent, whose address was then in Parma, Ohio, charging him with conduct 
violating other rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  On April 27, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
2000, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme 
Court (“board”) granted a motion by the Cleveland Bar Association to consolidate 
the two cases. 
 
Before the Cleveland Bar Association filed its complaint it was able, after 
many attempts, to speak with respondent about the grievances filed against him, 
and it obtained respondent’s promise to reply to the grievances.  Respondent 
never replied and never filed an answer to either complaint. 
 
The matter was referred to a panel of the board, which found that Patricia 
Yurko hired respondent in August 1997 and paid him a fee of $500 to probate her 
mother’s estate.  Thereafter Yurko had difficulty in contacting respondent, and in 
February 1998, she received a notice from the probate court requiring her to 
appear with a final accounting for the estate.  The attorney who had referred 
Yurko to respondent assured Yurko that she need not appear so long as 
respondent filed the appropriate papers.  Yurko met in late February 1998 with 
respondent and signed the papers he had prepared.  Respondent did not file the 
papers timely, nor did he file the papers by the extended deadline, March 6, 1998. 
 
The panel further found that in April 1996, the Grace family retained 
respondent in connection with various investments to be made on behalf of the 
individuals in the family, the companies they had an interest in, and their children.  
Although respondent was the only authorized signer for the Grace family bank 
accounts, he was not authorized to withdraw funds until instructed to do so by the 
family attorney.  The Grace family members retained the bank account passbooks 
to control access to their accounts,  totaling approximately $216,000.  When the 
family attorney contacted respondent in December 1998, he discovered that 
respondent had withdrawn all the funds.  Respondent, who required that the Grace 
family agree to release him from any liability with regard to his misappropriation 
of the money before he would return the funds, has failed to return $206,686.09, 
the total amount he took from the Grace family accounts. 
January Term, 2001 
3 
 
In addition, the panel found that in August 1997, Ron Garnett hired 
respondent and paid him $675 to file a bankruptcy petition.  Respondent failed to 
file the case and Garnett could not contact him.  It also found that Luckye Collins 
engaged respondent in 1995 to represent him in a case in the Supreme Court of 
Ohio.  Respondent obtained a remand of Collins’s case to the trial court but did 
not appear at the trial court hearings on the remand. 
 
The panel finally found that although respondent received certified letters 
from the Cleveland Bar Association inquiring about the Yurko matter, he failed to 
respond.  He also failed to respond to similar inquiries about the Grace family 
matter.  Nor did respondent reply to letters from the Cuyahoga County Bar 
Association about the Garnett or Collins matters. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s actions and failures to act violated 
DR 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving moral 
turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law), 2-110(A)(3) 
(a lawyer who withdraws from employment shall promptly refund any fee paid in 
advance that was not earned), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted 
legal matter), 6-102(A) (a lawyer shall not attempt to exonerate himself from or 
limit his liability to his client for his personal malpractice), 7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer 
shall not fail to carry out a contract of employment for legal services), 7-
101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not damage or prejudice a client during the course of a 
professional relationship), 9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records 
of all funds coming into his possession and render appropriate accounts to his 
client regarding them), 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly pay to the client as 
requested funds in the possession of the lawyer that the client is entitled to 
receive), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (a lawyer shall cooperate with the investigation 
of a grievance). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of 
law.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
 
On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Justin F. Madden and Stephen Webster, for relator Cuyahoga County Bar 
Association. 
 
Julie A. Harris and Mark T. Freeman, for relator Cleveland Bar 
Association. 
__________________