[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Rosenfield, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1583.] 

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. 2016-OHIO-1583

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROSENFIELD.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rosenfield, Slip Opinion 

No. 2016-Ohio-1583.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the 

former Code of Professional Responsibility —Indefinite suspension. 

(No. 2015-1635—November 17, 2015—Decided April 20, 2016.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2014-111. 

_______________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Ronald Lee Rosenfield, formerly of South Euclid, Ohio, 

Attorney Registration No. 0021093, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 

1970. We suspended Rosenfield’s license on an interim basis, effective August 5, 

2014, after he was convicted of a felony for willfully failing to truthfully account 

for federal income taxes and Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”) taxes 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

that he was statutorily required to withhold from the wages of his employees and 

pay to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). In re Rosenfield, 140 Ohio St.3d 

1232, 2014-Ohio-3365, 16 N.E.3d 669. 

{¶ 2} In a December 30, 2014 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, 

charged Rosenfield with multiple ethical violations arising from the conduct that 

led to his felony conviction.1

 Rosenfield entered into joint stipulations in which he 

admitted the facts and misconduct alleged in the complaint and agreed that certain 

aggravating and mitigating factors are present. The parties jointly recommended 

that Rosenfield be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio but that 

he be credited for the time served under his interim felony suspension and comply 

with certain terms and conditions on his reinstatement to the practice of law. 

{¶ 3} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct granted the parties’ 

motion to waive the hearing, noting that there were no unresolved issues and that 

compelling Rosenfield’s attendance at a hearing would create a heavy financial 

burden since he now resides in California. The panel adopted the parties’ 

stipulations and recommended that Rosenfield be indefinitely suspended from the 

practice of law with credit for time served under his interim felony suspension. 

{¶ 4} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, misconduct, and 

aggravating and mitigating factors and recommended that Rosenfield be 

indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. But the board also specified that 

Rosenfield should not receive credit for the time he has served under his interim 

felony suspension. We adopt the board’s findings and indefinitely suspend 

Rosenfield from the practice of law in Ohio with no credit for time served. 

 

1

 Because Rosenfield’s misconduct occurred both prior to and after the adoption of the Rules of 

Professional Conduct on February 1, 2007, relator charged respondent under the applicable rules of 

both the former Code of Professional Responsibility and the current Rules of Professional Conduct. 

However, when both the former and current rules are cited for the same acts, the allegations 

comprise a single continuing ethical violation. Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 

330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1. 
January Term, 2016 

3

Misconduct 

{¶ 5} According to the parties’ stipulations, Rosenfield was a partner in the 

law firm S & R Co., L.P.A. In 1998, the state of Ohio revoked the firm’s corporate 

charter for nonpayment of state franchise taxes. Rosenfield did not inform his 

partner of this revocation and continued to operate the practice under the corporate 

name until approximately 2003. At that time, Rosenfield became the sole owner, 

and his former partner insisted that he change the firm name. Thereafter, 

Rosenfield conducted his legal practice under the name Ronald L. Rosenfield Co., 

L.P.A. 

{¶ 6} At all times relevant herein, Rosenfield was responsible for the firm’s 

finances. He hired a separate payroll company to provide payroll and employment 

tax-return services and funded an S & R Co., L.P.A., payroll account. After he 

changed the firm’s name, Rosenfield never obtained a new Employer Identification 

Number (“EIN”) or filed any documents with the IRS to establish its existence as a 

taxable entity; on the contrary, he continued to use the payroll account and the EIN 

associated with the firm’s former name. In early 2008, Rosenfield stopped funding 

the payroll account, voided the checks that the payroll company had prepared, and 

replaced the checks with checks that he issued from the Ronald L. Rosenfield Co., 

L.P.A., general operating account. 

{¶ 7} On February 12, 2014, Rosenfield pleaded guilty to a bill of 

information that charged him with failing to collect, account for, and pay federal 

income and FICA taxes for the employees of his law firm from October 2006 

through March 2011, a felony in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7202. As part of his plea 

agreement, Rosenfield stipulated that from at least 1998 through 2011, he failed to 

file any type of corporate or business income-tax return and did not include a 

Schedule C on his own personal income-tax return to report the continued 

existence, income, and expenses of the law firm. Pursuant to Rosenfield’s plea 

agreement, the court sentenced him to six months of home detention and five years 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

of probation. The court also ordered him to pay restitution of $523,253.33 to the 

IRS.2

 United States v. Rosenfield, N.D. Ohio No. 1:14cr34 (July 10, 2014). 

{¶ 8} The parties stipulated that Rosenfield’s conduct violated DR 1-

102(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in illegal conduct involving moral 

turpitude), DR 1-102(A)(4) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (both prohibiting a lawyer 

from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 

misrepresentation), Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an 

illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness), and 

DR 1-102(A)(5) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (both prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 

in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). The panel adopted 

the parties’ stipulations of fact and agreed that Rosenfield’s misconduct violated 

DR 1-102(A)(3), DR 1-102(A)(4) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), and Prof.Cond.R. 

8.4(b). Having found that Rosenfield’s misconduct did not prejudice the 

administration of justice, however, the panel unanimously dismissed the alleged 

violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d). See Gov.Bar R. V(12)(G). 

The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct. We adopt the 

board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 

Sanction 

{¶ 9} 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, 

 

2

 The amount of restitution included the approximately $200,000 in withholdings that Rosenfield 

failed to submit to the IRS from the fourth quarter of 2006 through the first quarter of 2011 (which 

formed the basis of the criminal charges against him), over $300,000 in additional withholdings that 

he failed to submit to the IRS from the fourth quarter of 2001 through the third quarter of 2006 (for 

which the statute of limitations for criminal charges had expired), and $10,933.86 in unreported 

federal unemployment taxes.
January Term, 2016 

5

we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in 

Gov.Bar R. V(13). 

{¶ 10} The parties stipulated to just one aggravating factor—that 

Rosenfield engaged in a pattern of misconduct over approximately ten years. See 

Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3). The panel and board also found that Rosenfield acted 

with a selfish or dishonest motive because he failed to pay taxes and kept the money 

for himself. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2). As mitigating factors, the panel and 

board adopted the parties’ stipulations that Rosenfield (1) did not have a prior 

disciplinary record, (2) made a full and free disclosure to the board and 

demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, (3) 

submitted 19 letters attesting to his good character and competence as an attorney, 

(4) had other criminal penalties imposed for his misconduct, including a period of 

home detention and an order that he make restitution of $523,253.33 to the IRS, (5) 

cooperated with the underlying criminal investigation and admitted his 

wrongdoing, and (6) did not cause harm to his clients or employees. See Gov.Bar 

R. V(13)(C)(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6). 

{¶ 11} The panel adopted the parties’ joint recommendation that Rosenfield 

be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and receive credit for the time 

served under his interim felony suspension, which commenced on August 5, 2014. 

The panel also agreed that Rosenfield should be required to (1) comply with the 

terms of his criminal probation, (2) make timely restitution in the amounts that the 

IRS determines to be appropriate in light of his income, and (3) serve a three-year 

period of monitored probation upon his reinstatement to the practice of law to 

ensure that he not only makes timely restitution payments to the IRS but also 

properly files and pays all employment and unemployment taxes for his practice 

going forward. 

{¶ 12} The board adopted the panel’s findings regarding the applicable 

aggravating and mitigating factors and recommended that Rosenfield be 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and agreed that his reinstatement 

should be conditioned as recommended by the panel. But the board determined 

that Rosenfield should not receive any credit for the time served under his interim 

felony suspension. 

{¶ 13} In support of these recommendations, the panel and board 

considered several cases but found our decision in Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 

128 Ohio St.3d 390, 2011-Ohio-957, 944 N.E.2d 1166, to be most instructive. 

Smith admitted that he engaged in a course of conduct designed to conceal the true 

value and source of the compensation he received for services provided to the 

Catholic Diocese of Cleveland, that he failed to accurately report his income to the 

IRS, and that during an IRS audit, his agent falsely stated that all of his sources of 

income were reported on his tax return. Id. at ¶ 4-6. He was convicted of one count 

of conspiracy to defraud the IRS, four counts of making false tax returns, and one 

count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede an IRS investigation. Id. at 

¶ 5. For these offenses, Smith was sentenced to one year and one day in federal 

prison and ordered to perform 150 hours of community service and pay restitution 

of almost $400,000 to the IRS. Id. at ¶ 5, 7. 

{¶ 14} We found that Smith’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-

102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 

conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and 

indefinitely suspended him from the practice of law. Id. at ¶ 8, 16. Although we 

credited Smith for the time served under his interim felony suspension, we also 

conditioned his reinstatement on the completion of his federal supervised release 

and the execution of a final agreement for payment of restitution. Id. at ¶ 16. While 

Smith and Rosenfield engaged in comparable tax-evasion schemes, depriving the 

federal government of significant tax revenue, we find that Rosenfield’s scheme 

was more egregious in that it involved both his personal and business tax 

obligations and occurred over a period of more than ten years. 
January Term, 2016 

7

{¶ 15} Having considered Rosenfield’s misconduct, the applicable 

aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed for comparable 

misconduct, we agree that the appropriate sanction in this case is an indefinite 

suspension. However, we decline to credit Rosenfield for the time served under his 

interim felony suspension. 

{¶ 16} Accordingly, Ronald Lee Rosenfield is indefinitely suspended from 

the practice of law in Ohio and shall not receive credit for the time served under his 

interim felony suspension. Any future reinstatement of his license to practice law 

in this state shall be conditioned upon his compliance with the terms of his criminal 

probation and his full compliance with the terms of a payment plan approved by 

the IRS for the satisfaction of his restitution obligation. Upon reinstatement, 

Rosenfield shall serve a three-year period of monitored probation in accordance 

with Gov.Bar R. V(21) to ensure that he complies with his IRS-approved restitution 

plan and properly files and pays all employment and unemployment taxes for his 

practice going forward. Costs are taxed to Rosenfield. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and

FRENCH, JJ., concur. 

O’NEILL, J., dissents and would grant the respondent credit for time served 

under interim felony suspension. 

_________________ 

Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

Bender, Alexander & Broome Co., L.P.A., and J. Timothy Bender, for 

respondent. 

_________________