[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rockman, 94 Ohio St.3d 12, 2001-Ohio-6975.]

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROCKMAN. 

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rockman (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 12.] 

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 — Neglect of an entrusted 

legal matter — Failing to carry out contract for professional 

employment — Prejudicing or damaging client during course of 

professional relationship — Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 

administration of justice — Entering into an agreement for, charging, or 

collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee — Handling a legal matter 

without adequate preparation — Concealing or knowingly failing to 

disclose that which is required by law to be revealed — Failing to 

maintain complete records of all funds coming into lawyer’s possession 

and render appropriate accounts thereof — Practicing in a jurisdiction 

where doing so is in violation of the regulations of that jurisdiction — 

Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in a disciplinary investigation 

or hearing. 

(No. 01-1203 — Submitted August 28, 2001 — Decided December 19, 2001.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-100. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. After respondent, Thomas G. Rockman of Tampa, Florida, 

Attorney Registration No. 0033314, failed to answer a five-count complaint filed 

against him on December 4, 2000, by relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

the matter was referred to Master Commissioner John R. Milligan for ruling upon 

the relator’s motion for default. 

 The master commissioner found that a notice of respondent’s default was 

served on respondent, who had an opportunity to answer. Based upon the 

unanswered complaint and exhibits submitted by relator, the master commissioner 

found that in 1995, John J. Hernandez paid respondent $600 to represent him in 

connection with a personal injury claim and a motor vehicle citation. Although 

respondent met with Hernandez over a period of two years and represented to 

Hernandez that he had filed his personal injury suit, respondent did not file any 

action for Hernandez. The master commissioner concluded that respondent’s 

conduct 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 adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 

law), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 7-

101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract for professional 

employment), and 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not prejudice or damage his client). 

 In addition, the master commissioner found that in 1995, respondent 

agreed to process a claim for toxic chemical exposure for Hernandez on a 

contingent fee basis. During the next year, respondent showed Hernandez a letter 

purportedly from the defendant company, said that he had filed a complaint 

against the company, and showed Hernandez an answer, which he represented as 

having been filed by the company. In fact, respondent had not filed any claims or 

pleadings for Hernandez or received any correspondence or pleadings from the 

company. The master commissioner concluded that respondent’s conduct in 

relation to this matter violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not 

engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 6-101(A)(3), 7-

101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3). 
January Term, 2001 

3

 The master commissioner also found that after Hernandez was struck by a 

drunk driver in a different motor vehicle accident, respondent falsely represented 

himself to the insurance company as having been retained by Hernandez. He then 

negotiated and settled Hernandez’s claim against the insurance company without 

Hernandez’s permission. Respondent eventually informed Hernandez that 

respondent would have to pay $4,300 out of the settlement funds to another 

attorney for services involved in the personal injury action. The master 

commissioner concluded that on this count, respondent violated DR 1-101(A)(3), 

1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 2-106(A) (a lawyer shall not enter into an 

agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 6-101(A)(2) 

(a lawyer shall not handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the 

circumstances), 6-101(A)(3), 7-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not conceal or 

knowingly fail to disclose that which he is required by law to reveal), and 9-

102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds coming into the 

lawyer’s possession and render appropriate accounts thereof). 

 Finally, the master commissioner found that respondent failed to cooperate 

with relator’s attempts to investigate the charges against him, that he consistently 

failed to register with the Supreme Court since September 1991, and that in July 

1998, we suspended him from the practice of law for failure to meet his 

continuing legal education requirements. In re Report of Comm. on Continuing 

Legal Edn. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 1456, 696 N.E.2d 215. As to these counts, the 

master commissioner found that respondent violated DR 3-101(B) (practicing in a 

jurisdiction where doing so is in violation of the regulations of that jurisdiction) 

and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in 

an investigation or hearing). 

 The master commissioner found no mitigating circumstances and 

recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the master 

commissioner. 

 We have reviewed the record in this case and 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 and LUNDBERG 

STRATTON, JJ., concur. 

 COOK, J., concurs in judgment. 

__________________ 

 Howard D. Mishkind, Jacob A.H. Kronenberg and Thomas E. Kocovsky, 

Jr., for relator. 

__________________