[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lorenzon, 133 Ohio St.3d 332, 2012-Ohio-4713.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LORENZON. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lorenzon, 

133 Ohio St.3d 332, 2012-Ohio-4713.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Permitting others to use attorney-registration number 

and electronic signature—Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 

practice law—Stayed six-month suspension. 

(No. 2011-2184—Submitted March 7, 2012—Decided October 16, 2012.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-044. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Jason Todd Lorenzon of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0082510, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2007. 

On June 14, 2010, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint charging 

Lorenzon with multiple violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct 

arising from his “of counsel” relationship with a Florida law firm that negotiates 

debt on behalf of consumers. Lorenzon answered the complaint, admitting many 

of the factual allegations in the complaint but denying that his conduct violated 

the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. 

{¶ 2} At the September 2011 hearing conducted by a panel of the Board 

of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, the parties submitted stipulated 

findings of fact, mitigation, and aggravation, as well as 11 stipulated exhibits. 

Respondent testified and submitted 12 letters attesting to his good character and 

reputation. 

{¶ 3} Of the multiple violations alleged in relator’s complaint, the panel 

found only that Lorenzon’s conduct in permitting the Florida law firm to use his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

electronic signature and attorney-registration number with no restrictions violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 

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

he receive a six-month stayed suspension for that conduct. The panel 

recommended that the remaining allegations in relator’s complaint be dismissed. 

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

its recommended sanction, and there are no objections to this recommendation. 

We adopt those findings and agree that a six-month stayed suspension is the 

appropriate sanction for Lorenzon’s misconduct. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 5} On September 15, 2008, Lorenzon entered into an “of counsel” 

agreement with Consumer Law Group, P.A. (“CLG”), a Florida law firm that 

negotiates debt on behalf of consumers. The agreement provided that Lorenzon 

would be paid $1,000 annually to serve as local counsel for CLG and that he 

would execute a contract with each Ohio client. To facilitate the execution of the 

contracts, the agreement required Lorenzon to provide CLG with his electronic 

signature and Ohio attorney-registration number. The agreement specified that 

Lorenzon’s only duty to Ohio clients was to engage in “episodic phone calls 

wherein [he] may be needed to answer client questions from time to time”—a 

duty that CLG estimated would require no more than three hours per year—and 

expressly provided that Lorenzon would not be obligated to represent the clients 

in court or before any agency or panel. 

{¶ 6} Lorenzon received the $1,000 payment and provided his electronic 

signature and attorney-registration number to CLG in September 2008. He was 

not aware of any contracts with CLG clients until after Floyd and Mary Brown 

sued him and CLG in May 2009 to terminate a November 2008 contract with 

CLG. Lorenzon was the only representative of CLG identified in the Browns’ 

contract, and in addition to his name, the document bore his electronic signature 
January Term, 2012 

3

and Ohio attorney-registration number. The Browns settled their claims against 

respondent and the owner of CLG, Michael L. Metzner, on June 1, 2009, and 

received a full refund. 

{¶ 7} Lorenzon later learned that CLG had used his name, electronic 

signature, and attorney-registration number to enter into at least three other 

contracts without his knowledge. He testified that he understood that he would be 

responsible for overseeing all of CLG’s Ohio client cases to ensure that their 

representation was in accordance with the “Ohio ethics rules” and in their best 

interests. 

{¶ 8} Lorenzon testified that he approved a blank form contract that 

CLG was to use for Ohio clients and explained that he thought he was to receive 

every contract by e-mail, approve it, and send it back to CLG, where his 

electronic signature would be affixed to the contract. He thought this procedure 

would be easier and require less time than actually signing each contract, 

scanning it, and sending it back to CLG. He admitted, however, that his contract 

with CLG did not specify that he was to review each individual contract and that 

it authorized CLG to apply or use his signature on correspondence and forms that 

he had preapproved. 

{¶ 9} The panel and board found that Lorenzon violated Prof.Cond.R. 

8.4(h) as alleged in Count One of the complaint, by giving CLG his electronic 

signature and attorney-registration number without placing restrictions on how 

they could be used. They recommend, however, that we dismiss an alleged 

violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating or 

attempting to violate the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct) and all of the 

allegations in Counts Two through Six of relator’s complaint—some on relator’s 

motion, and others on the insufficiency of the evidence. 

{¶ 10} We adopt these findings of fact and find by clear and convincing 

evidence that Lorenzon has violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). We also adopt the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

board’s recommendation to dismiss the remaining allegations of relator’s 

complaint. 

Sanction

{¶ 11} 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, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 

listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 

St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 

{¶ 12} The parties stipulated and the board found that the absence of a 

prior disciplinary record, Lorenzon’s full and free disclosure to the board, and his 

cooperative attitude toward the proceedings should be considered in mitigation of 

sanction. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d). Lorenzon also submitted 12 

letters from attorneys, family, and friends attesting to his good character and 

integrity apart from the charged misconduct, as well as his professional skills. 

See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e). Although the parties did not stipulate to any 

aggravating factors, the board expressed its concern that Lorenzon felt that he had 

been victimized by Metzner and found that he did not acknowledge the 

wrongfulness of his own conduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g). 

{¶ 13} Relator sought a public reprimand for Lorenzon’s misconduct, 

while Lorenzon argued that the complaint should be dismissed. 

{¶ 14} The panel and board note that we have not previously disciplined 

an attorney for relinquishing his electronic signature and attorney-registration 

number to a third party for use on preapproved correspondence and forms. We 

have, however, sanctioned attorneys who have failed to properly supervise their 

employees. In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Watson, 106 Ohio St.3d 298, 2005-Ohio4983, 834 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 4, we found that a bedridden attorney aided the 
January Term, 2012 

5

unauthorized practice of law and neglected a client matter when he instructed his 

paralegal to draft legal pleadings for his review and signature and failed to 

properly supervise the paralegal, who then drafted the documents, signed the 

attorney’s name to them, and filed them in court without the attorney’s consent. 

For this misconduct, and for failing to advise a client that his professional-liability 

insurance had lapsed, we imposed a six-month suspension, all stayed on 

conditions. 

{¶ 15} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Maley, 119 Ohio St.3d 217, 2008-Ohio3923, 893 N.E.2d 180, ¶ 4, 23, we imposed an 18-month suspension, with six 

months stayed on conditions, after a secretary used the attorney’s name and office 

to prepare and file various bankruptcy pleadings and respond to notices and letters 

from bankruptcy trustees without the attorney’s knowledge or consent. We noted: 

Respondent’s lax supervision of his employee allowed her 

to use respondent’s credit card, his bankruptcy court credentials, 

and his reputation to the detriment of his clients and the court. 

Appropriate oversight of his practice could have prevented her 

misconduct. If respondent had read his e-mail notifications from 

the bankruptcy court, reviewed his bank statements and credit card 

charges, and reviewed his files on a regular basis, he would have 

known that something was wrong. 

Id. at ¶ 20. While recognizing an attorney’s need to delegate some tasks, we have 

insisted that attorneys provide ample supervision to ensure that those tasks are 

completed properly. Id. at ¶ 21, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball, 67 Ohio 

St.3d 401, 404, 618 N.E.2d 159 (1993). 

{¶ 16} Here, there is no allegation that Lorenzon failed to adequately 

supervise his own staff. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that in exchange for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

$1,000, he provided his electronic signature and Ohio attorney-registration 

number for use by a Florida-based corporation. Although Lorenzon claims to 

have relied upon Metzner’s oral representations that he would see each contract 

before his electronic signature would be affixed, those representations were not 

incorporated into the contract, which provides: “Attorney shall execute all ‘Debt 

Settlement’ or ‘Negotiation’ agreements with potential clients in Ohio. Toward 

that end, upon execution of this Agreement, Attorney shall email Company an 

electronic signature to be used on correspondence and forms that have been preapproved by Attorney.” 

{¶ 17} Lorenzon admitted that he had preapproved the blank form that 

was to be used for every Ohio client and acknowledged that the contract with 

CLG did not require his approval for every individual debt-negotiation contract. 

Thus, Lorenzon provided his electronic signature without retaining any 

appreciable means to control or supervise its use. His only justification for the 

arrangement was to save the time that it would otherwise have taken him to sign 

each individual contract, scan it, and send it back to CLG—a process that he 

estimated would delay contract execution by a couple of hours. One panel 

member likened the process to giving CLG “what amounts to your ATM 

identification and your pin number.” 

{¶ 18} Because an attorney’s signature, whether actual or electronic, 

affixed to a document along with an attorney-registration number reflects personal 

assent to or approval of a document, the attorney must jealously guard its use to 

protect innocent third parties as well as the attorney’s own reputation. 

{¶ 19} Here, Lorenzon’s failure to properly supervise the use of his 

signature exposed him to unanticipated professional liability at the hands of an 

allegedly unscrupulous person. But more importantly, by loaning his good name 

without retaining adequate control over its use, he exposed vulnerable and 
January Term, 2012 

7

unsuspecting Ohio consumers to the questionable practices of an out-of-state 

debt-negotiation firm. 

{¶ 20} Based upon this conduct, we agree that Lorenzon engaged in 

conduct that adversely reflects upon his fitness to practice law, in violation of 

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). And although we agree that the facts of this case are unique, 

we find that Lorenzon’s conduct and the attendant risk of harm to third parties are 

analogous to cases in which attorneys have failed to properly supervise their 

employees. In recognition of the mitigating factors in this case and the absence of 

any evidence to show that any clients were harmed, we agree that a six-month 

stayed suspension is the appropriate sanction for Lorenzon’s misconduct. 

{¶ 21} Accordingly, Jason Todd Lorenzon is hereby suspended from the 

practice of law in Ohio for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the 

condition that he commit no further misconduct. If Lorenzon fails to comply with 

the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and he shall serve the full sixmonth suspension. Costs are taxed to Lorenzon. 

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 Hissom 

Coglianese, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

 Jason Todd Lorenzon, pro se. 

______________________