Disciplinary Counsel v. Lantz - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lantz, 95 Ohio St.3d 132, 2002-Ohio-1757.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LANTZ.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lantz, 95 Ohio St.3d 132, 2002-Ohio-1757.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Failing to promptly
deliver to client funds to which client is entitled -- Engaging in conduct
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law -- Failing to maintain
complete records of all client funds and render appropriate accounts
thereof -- Neglect of an entrusted legal matter -- Damaging or
prejudicing client during course of professional relationship -- Failing
to carry out contract of professional employment -- Engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
(No. 2001-2175 -- Submitted January 30, 2002 -- Decided May 1, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-17.
__________________
Per Curiam
{¶1} On February 14, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel,
filed a seven count complaint charging respondent, Charles J. Lantz of Lancaster,
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0016201, with numerous violations of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Respondent answered, and the matter was referred
to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court ("board").
{¶2} Based on evidence and stipulations received at a hearing, the panel
found that in October 1994, Charles and Judy Smith hired respondent to represent
them in a personal injury matter arising from an automobile accident a year
earlier. In February and March 1997, respondent received and placed in his trust
account the settlement of $300,000 that he had negotiated on behalf of the Smiths.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Although respondent paid the Smiths $60,000 of the settlement in March 1997, he
did not pay any of the Smiths' creditors, including medical providers, the amounts
to which they were subrogated until they threatened to file suit in November
1998. Then, in that month, he wrote five checks on his trust account totaling
approximately $140,000, one of which, in the amount of $76,188, was payable to
the Smiths. Another check, in the amount of $59,000, written to a creditor, was
dishonored twice in December 1998 because of insufficient funds in respondent's
trust account. After the creditor-payee contacted the Lancaster Police Department
about the dishonored checks and relator wrote a letter of inquiry to respondent
about them, respondent issued a cashier's check to the creditor. Respondent did
not respond to a letter of inquiry or to repeated inquiries by relator seeking
information about his trust account. Ultimately, relator obtained a subpoena
duces tecum directed to respondent, but respondent did not appear at the
scheduled deposition.
{¶3} The panel concluded that by his inordinate delay in distributing the
Smith settlement funds, respondent violated DR 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall
promptly deliver to the client funds or property to which the client is entitled) and
1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the
lawyer's fitness to practice law). The panel also concluded that respondent's
failure to keep accurate records regarding his trust account violated DR 9-
102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds of a client
coming into the lawyer's possession and render appropriate accounts thereof), and
his failure to make prompt payment to the medical providers violated DR 6-
101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter). Further, the
panel concluded that respondent's failure to promptly pay his clients their share of
the settlement caused them to lose interest that may have accrued. As a result of
this, respondent violated DR 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not prejudice or damage
his client during the course of the professional relationship).
2

January Term, 2002
{¶4} In addition, the panel concluded that respondent's failure to
cooperate with relator's investigation of his trust fund account violated Gov.Bar
R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in an
investigation or hearing). And it concluded that respondent again violated
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) after finding that he failed to respond to nine separate letters
of inquiry from relator concerning other clients.
{¶5} The panel also found that after Mark Cook hired respondent in
March 1999 and paid him a $500 retainer to adjust a child support obligation,
Cook was unable to communicate with respondent. Respondent did not return
any of the several telephone calls that Cook had made to his office and did not
respond to Cook's letters, although he received at least one of them before he was
incarcerated in May 1999 on an earlier conviction for driving while intoxicated.
It also found that although respondent had filed nothing on Cook's behalf, he did
not return Cook's retainer when requested. The panel concluded that
respondent's conduct in the Cook matter violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3),
7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract of professional
employment), and 7-101(A)(3).
{¶6} The panel further found that in June 1997, Phyllis G. Scott hired
respondent to obtain a divorce. Respondent took five antique guns as a retainer
but failed to give Scott any receipt for them or keep a record of them himself. At
a hearing in August 1997, the court awarded Scott's husband the temporary
possession of a travel trailer. Shortly thereafter, Scott discharged respondent and
asked for an accounting of his services. Respondent did not provide the
accounting, claiming that Scott never asked him for a final bill or discussed in
person that he terminated his services. The panel found otherwise. Moreover, at
the hearing before the panel, respondent estimated that his time in the Scott matter
was worth $4,000. Respondent claimed that he had received only three or four
guns and that they were appraised from photographs at $1,250.
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶7} The panel concluded that respondent lied both about his
termination by Scott and about Scott's request for an accounting, and in so lying
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The panel also concluded that
respondent's failure to keep records with respect to the guns and their value
violated DR 9-102(B)(3).
{¶8} The panel found numerous aggravating circumstances, including
respondent's failure to make restitution of $500 to Cook. In mitigation, the panel
found that respondent had no record of prior disciplinary actions, and selfishness
and dishonesty did not seem to have motivated his conduct. The respondent
presented a number of character witnesses in his behalf.
{¶9} The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended
from the practice of law. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the panel.
{¶10} On review, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from
the practice of law. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kevin L. Williams,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Thomas M. Tyack, for respondent.
__________________
4