Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Bozanich

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bozanich, 95 Ohio St.3d 109, 2002-Ohio-1939.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BOZANICH. 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BOZANICH. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bozanich (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 109.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Paying money to a 
judge before whom attorney appeared as counsel — Handling a legal 
matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances — Neglect of 
an entrusted legal matter — Failing to carry out contract of professional 
employment — Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 01-1562 — Submitted October 16, 2001 — Decided April 24, 2002.) 
(No. 01-1880 — Submitted January 9, 2002 — Decided April 24, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, Nos. 00-30 and 01-42. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On April 17, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 
filed a complaint in case No. 00-30 (Supreme Court case No. 01-1562), charging 
that respondent, Peter J. Bozanich of Boardman, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0037881, violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility 
by paying money to a judge before whom he appeared as counsel.  Respondent 
answered, and the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel accepted the stipulations of the parties that in 1992, respondent, 
at the request of Judge Patrick Kerrigan of the Youngstown Municipal Court, 
arranged a meeting between the judge and Mark Novosel, who ran a substance 
abuse program for DUI offenders.  At the meeting, respondent gave Judge 
Kerrigan an envelope he had received from Novosel containing $1,000.  Later in 
1992, at a Christmas party, Judge Kerrigan asked respondent for $1,000, saying, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
“You are appearing in my court next week.”  Respondent gave the judge $1,000.  
In the spring of 1996, while respondent was appearing in court before Judge 
Kerrigan, the judge took respondent aside and asked him for $400, which the 
respondent, at the judge’s instruction, put in the judge’s coat in his chambers.  In 
the summer of 1996, Judge Kerrigan called respondent and asked whether he had 
been paid by a client who was appearing before the judge, saying, “I need the 
money.”  The respondent told the judge that he had not been paid by the client 
and therefore had no money to give to the judge. 
 
The panel accepted the further stipulation that in March 1998, Judge 
Kerrigan pled guilty in federal court to two counts of extortion and one count of 
obstructing justice.  The judge’s guilty plea was motivated in large part by 
respondent’s willingness to testify at the trial.  However, while respondent 
cooperated in the federal investigation of Judge Kerrigan, it was not until 1999 
that respondent notified disciplinary authorities about the judge’s conduct. 
 
The panel accepted the stipulation that by his acts and failures to act 
respondent 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)(5) (a lawyer 
shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-
102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  In addition, the panel concluded that respondent 
had violated DR 1-103(A) (a lawyer who has unprivileged knowledge of a 
violation of DR 1-102 shall report that knowledge to a tribunal or to other 
investigatory authorities).  After considering that respondent cooperated in the 
investigation of Judge Kerrigan, the panel recommended that respondent be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel in case No. 01-1562. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
 
On April 9, 2001, while case No. 01-1562 was pending, relator, Mahoning 
County Bar Association, filed a complaint against respondent in case No. 01-42 
(Supreme Court case No. 01-1880), alleging that in June 1999, Aubin Rivera, Jr. 
retained respondent to have Rivera’s oldest daughter declared emancipated and to 
resolve an issue of alleged back child support.  Rivera paid respondent $400.  
Respondent drafted an agreed judgment entry, but Rivera’s ex-wife refused to 
sign it.  Respondent then told Rivera he would draft a motion and obtain a hearing 
date.  Rivera gave respondent a check for the fee to file the motion but thereafter 
could not contact respondent. 
 
Rivera filed a grievance against respondent, and although a representative 
of relator was able to speak briefly with respondent about it, respondent did not 
answer relator’s April 9, 2001 complaint.  Relator’s motion for default was 
referred to Master Commissioner John R. Milligan for ruling. 
 
The master commissioner found the facts as alleged in the complaint and 
concluded that respondent’s failure to act violated DR 6-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall 
not attempt to handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the 
circumstances), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 
and 7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract of professional 
employment).  He also found that respondent’s failure to cooperate with relator 
violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or 
testify in an investigation or hearing).  Noting no mitigating factors for 
consideration, the master commissioner recommended that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period. 
 
The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the master 
commissioner, but noting also its findings and conclusions in case No. 01-1562, 
recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law. 
 
Upon review of the record in both of these matters, we adopt the findings 
and conclusions of the board in both.  We adopt the recommendation of the board 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
in case No. 01-1880 that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice 
of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY, J., dissents and would indefinitely suspend respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator in case No. 01-
1562. 
 
Larry D. Wilkes and Ronald E. Slipski, for relator in case No. 01-1880. 
 
J. Gerald Ingram, for respondent in case No. 01-1562 only. 
__________________