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

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. RASO. 

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

Attorneys — Misconduct — Neglect of client matters and dishonest conduct — 

Six-month license suspension ordered. 

(No. 2010-2203 — Submitted February 16, 2011 — Decided June 22, 2011.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT 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 practice 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 Professional Responsibility 

and the Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his representation of two 

clients.1

{¶ 2} After reviewing the parties’ stipulations of fact and misconduct, a 

panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline dismissed, 

sua sponte, allegations that respondent had charged an illegal or clearly excessive 

fee and recommended that respondent’s license 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 Responsibility. When both the former and current rules are 

cited for the same act, the allegation constitutes a single ethical violation. Disciplinary Counsel v. 

Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

{¶ 3} We find that respondent has committed misconduct as stipulated 

by the parties and found by the panel and board and conclude that a six-month 

suspension is warranted. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 4} The stipulated evidence demonstrates that in 2003, respondent 

accepted a $900 retainer to file a civil action on behalf of a client, which he did. 

In May 2005, the client received an arbitration award of $8,000, and the defendant 

received a $3,000 arbitration award on his counterclaim. Respondent did not 

provide his client with documentation 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 certificate of judgment and a copy of the 

arbitration award. The record demonstrates that since June 2009, respondent has 

collected $5,500 of the arbitration award. 

{¶ 5} With regard to count two, the parties stipulated and the panel and 

board found that in November 2006, a client paid respondent $450 to pursue a 

small-claims action on his behalf. Respondent did not file 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 January 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 relator began his investigation. 

{¶ 6} The panel and board adopted the 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 misrepresentation) and 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting 
January Term, 2011 

3

neglect of an entrusted legal matter) and 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 dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 

{¶ 7} Regarding count two, the panel and board adopted the parties’ 

stipulation that respondent’s conduct before 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 panel 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 Discipline (“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 prior 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 two 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 relator initiated his investigation. Second, we 

observe that on December 3, 2007, we suspended 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, 877 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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 six 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 that 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’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather L. Hissom, 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

Frank Anthony Raso, pro se. 

______________________