[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Raso, 129 Ohio St.3d 277, 2011-Ohio-2900.]

D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . R ASO

. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Raso, 129 Ohio St.3d 277, 2011-Ohio-2900.] Attorneys — Misconduct — Neglect of client matters and di shonest conduct — Six-month license suspension ordered. (No. 2010-2203 — Submitted February 16, 2011 — Decided June 22, 2011.)

O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-030.

__________________ Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} Respondent, Frank Anthony Raso of Brunswick, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0069270, was admitted to the pr actice of law in Ohio in 1998. In April 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a two-count complaint charging respondent with multiple violations of the Code of Profe ssional Responsibility
and the Rules of Professi onal Conduct arising from hi s representation of two
clients. 1 {¶ 2} After reviewing the parties’ stipul ations of fact and misconduct, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline dismissed, sua sponte, allegations that respondent ha d charged an illegal or clearly excessive fee and recommended that respondent’s li cense to practice law be suspended for six months. The board accepted the panel’s findings and its recommended sanction, and no objections have been filed.

1. Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which supersede the Code of Professional Responsibil ity. When both the former and current rules are cited for the same act, the allegation cons titutes a single ethical violation. Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman , 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 {¶ 3} We find that respondent has co mmitted misconduct as stipulated by the parties and found by the panel a nd board and conclude that a six-month suspension is warranted.
Misconduct {¶ 4} The stipulated evidence demonstr ates that in 2003, respondent accepted a $900 retainer to file a civil action on behalf of a clie nt, which he did. In May 2005, the client received an arb itration award of $8,000, and the defendant received a $3,000 arbitration award on his counterclaim. Respondent did not provide his client with doc umentation of this award. Respondent did not attempt to collect the judgment, but continued to act as if the case were pending, sending the client copies of documents that he had purportedly filed. In November 2008, the trial court closed the case because no action had been taken since the May 2005 arbitration award. In June 2009, after relator had begun its investigation, respondent filed a praecipe for a certifi cate of judgment and a copy of the
arbitration award. The record demonstr ates that since June 2009, respondent has collected $5,500 of the arbitration award. {¶ 5} With regard to count two, the par ties stipulated and the panel and board found that in November 2006, a c lient paid respondent $450 to pursue a
small-claims action on his be half. Respondent did not f ile the action, nor did he heed the client’s requests that he return the fee. In 2007, the client retained new counsel to pursue the refund. From Ja nuary through May 2009, respondent made several false representations that he would return the fee, including one representation that a check was in the mail. He refunded the client’s fee on October 27, 2009 – after relato r began his investigation. {¶ 6} The panel and board adopted th e parties’ stipulation that respondent’s conduct with respect to count one prior to February 1, 2007, violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepres entation) and 6-101(A)(3) (prohibitingJanuary Term, 2011

3 neglect of an entrusted legal matter) a nd that his conduct after February 1, 2007, violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonest y, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). {¶ 7} Regarding count two, the panel a nd board adopted the parties’ stipulation that respondent’s conduct be fore February 1, 2007, violated DR 6- 101(A)(3) and that his conduct after that date violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c). We also adopt these findings of fact and misconduct.
Sanction {¶ 8} In recommending a sanction, the pa nel and board considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board
of Commissioners on Grievances and Di scipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). See Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli , 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. {¶ 9} As mitigating factors, the panel and board adopted the parties’ stipulation that respondent had no prio r disciplinary record, has made a timely, good-faith effort to make restitution or to rectify the consequences of his misconduct, has provided full and free disclosure during the investigation, and has displayed a cooperative attitude. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d). They found none of the aggravating factors set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1). We adopt these findings, with tw o exceptions. First, we recognize that the mitigating effect of respondent’s payment of restitution is tempered by the fact that the restitution came only after relato r initiated his inves tigation. Second, we observe that on December 3, 2007, we susp ended respondent’s license to practice law for failing to comply with attorney-registration rules. See In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Raso , 116 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2007-Ohio-6463, 877S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 N.E.2d 305. Respondent was reinstated on December 10, 2007. In re Reinstatement of Raso , 116 Ohio St.3d 1498, 2008-Ohio-290, 880 N.E.2d 97. {¶ 10} Citing Disciplinary Counsel v. King (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 612, 660 N.E.2d 1160, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Stollings , 111 Ohio St.3d 155, 2006-Ohio-5345, 855 N.E.2d 479, ¶ 3-10, the board recommends that we suspend respondent from the practice of law for si x months. Like respondent, both King and Stollings had neglected a client’s legal matter and had then lied to the client
about the status of the case. King at 613-614; Stollings at ¶ 3-10. In each case, we observed that an actual suspension is particularly appropriate for an attorney’s dishonesty toward a client, and we imposed a six-month suspension. King at 614; Stollings at ¶ 13. Therefore, we agree th at a six-month suspension is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct. {¶ 11} Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs are taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

__________________ Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinar y Counsel, and Heather L. Hissom, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Frank Anthony Raso, pro se.

______________________