disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Rozanc, Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v.
123 Ohio St.3d 78, 2009-Ohio-4207. Decided 8/27/2009.
Case Summaries- 283
Respondent failed to diligently represent and properly communicate with his client who was executor of a
decedent‘s estate. Respondent initially met with the client to discuss the estate and probate process
several times in March or April 2007 at respondent‘s apartment where he had his office. The client had
never before hired an attorney. In mid-June 2007, the client paid $500 in legal fees and $161 for probate
court filing fees and he signed papers seeking release of the estate from probate administration.
Respondent did not file the papers and did nothing for the client. The client heard from respondent
once or twice by phone, but then never heard from him again. Respondent did not answer calls from the
client. After four and one-half months of trying to reach respondent, the client hired a new attorney.
Respondent did not answer calls from the new attorney and he did not respond to the new attorney‘s
letters. Respondent testified that he became uncertain whether the estate should be handled through a
release from probate or a more summary procedure. He did not find an answer through research and
had no one to ask so he panicked and failed to do anything. His inaction held up the probate
proceedings until April 2008. Respondent claimed that the new attorney‘s message was ―garbled‖ and
that he did not receive her letters. The client‘s sisters, who became increasingly mistrustful of the
lack of progress on the estate and also blamed the brother, called the new attorney and complained. The
client filed a grievance. After receiving a letter of inquiry, respondent called the investigator and
promised to drop off the will and related documents, but failed to do so. Respondent is disabled and
unable to drive. The investigator called respondent‘s disconnected telephone three times in March 2008
and wrote two more letters, one certified. In early April l2008, the investigator received the original will
by mail and a check to the client for $686, which included an extra $25 to compensate the client for
having to find new counsel. Respondent attributed his delay to his desire to return the papers and refund
at the same time and to having misplaced his client trust account checkbook for several weeks. Board
adopted the panel‘s findings of violations of Prof.Cond. Rule 1.3 and 1.4(a)(3) and (4). In mitigation,
there was no prior discipline, no dishonest or selfish motives, and there was restitution, and cooperation.
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), and (d). Despite respondent‘s testimony concerning his
depressed mental state, which he referred to as a ―general depression‖ that started after he lost his office
in January 2007 for which he once saw a counselor, the board did not find a mitigating mental
disability under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(i) through (iv). In aggravation, respondent delayed in
returning the client‘s original papers to the investigator and then mailed them instead of delivering them as
requested; did not make restitution until after the grievance was filed; engaged in a pattern of
misconduct in his repeated failure to address inquiries of the client, the new lawyer, and the
investigator; and harmed a vulnerable first-time client. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (h). Board adopted
the panel‘s recommended sanction of a one-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions,
including among other things that respondent complete a law- office management course, enter a contract
with OLAP for a minimum of 24 months and obtain a mental health assessment and pursue treatment as
determined by OLAP; and the Board added a condition that the reinstatement during the stayed portion of
the suspension be monitored. Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the findings, conclusions, and
recommended sanction and so ordered.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4)
Aggravation: (c), (h)
Mitigation: (a), (b), (c), (d)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: One-year suspension, 6 months stayed