Disciplinary Counsel v. Bozanich - 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. Bozanich, 95 Ohio St.3d 109, 2002-Ohio-1939.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BOZANICH.
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BOZANICH.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bozanich (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 109.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Paying money to a
judge before whom attorney appeared as counsel -- Handling a legal
matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances -- Neglect of
an entrusted legal matter -- Failing to carry out contract of professional
employment -- Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation.
(No. 01-1562 -- Submitted October 16, 2001 -- Decided April 24, 2002.)
(No. 01-1880 -- Submitted January 9, 2002 -- Decided April 24, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, Nos. 00-30 and 01-42.
__________________

Per Curiam. On April 17, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel,
filed a complaint in case No. 00-30 (Supreme Court case No. 01-1562), charging
that respondent, Peter J. Bozanich of Boardman, Ohio, Attorney Registration No.
0037881, violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility
by paying money to a judge before whom he appeared as counsel. Respondent
answered, and the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners
on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board").

The panel accepted the stipulations of the parties that in 1992, respondent,
at the request of Judge Patrick Kerrigan of the Youngstown Municipal Court,
arranged a meeting between the judge and Mark Novosel, who ran a substance
abuse program for DUI offenders. At the meeting, respondent gave Judge
Kerrigan an envelope he had received from Novosel containing $1,000. Later in
1992, at a Christmas party, Judge Kerrigan asked respondent for $1,000, saying,

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
"You are appearing in my court next week." Respondent gave the judge $1,000.
In the spring of 1996, while respondent was appearing in court before Judge
Kerrigan, the judge took respondent aside and asked him for $400, which the
respondent, at the judge's instruction, put in the judge's coat in his chambers. In
the summer of 1996, Judge Kerrigan called respondent and asked whether he had
been paid by a client who was appearing before the judge, saying, "I need the
money." The respondent told the judge that he had not been paid by the client
and therefore had no money to give to the judge.

The panel accepted the further stipulation that in March 1998, Judge
Kerrigan pled guilty in federal court to two counts of extortion and one count of
obstructing justice. The judge's guilty plea was motivated in large part by
respondent's willingness to testify at the trial. However, while respondent
cooperated in the federal investigation of Judge Kerrigan, it was not until 1999
that respondent notified disciplinary authorities about the judge's conduct.

The panel accepted the stipulation that by his acts and failures to act
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct
involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer
shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-
102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the
lawyer's fitness to practice law). In addition, the panel concluded that respondent
had violated DR 1-103(A) (a lawyer who has unprivileged knowledge of a
violation of DR 1-102 shall report that knowledge to a tribunal or to other
investigatory authorities). After considering that respondent cooperated in the
investigation of Judge Kerrigan, the panel recommended that respondent be
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
panel in case No. 01-1562.
2

January Term, 2002

On April 9, 2001, while case No. 01-1562 was pending, relator, Mahoning
County Bar Association, filed a complaint against respondent in case No. 01-42
(Supreme Court case No. 01-1880), alleging that in June 1999, Aubin Rivera, Jr.
retained respondent to have Rivera's oldest daughter declared emancipated and to
resolve an issue of alleged back child support. Rivera paid respondent $400.
Respondent drafted an agreed judgment entry, but Rivera's ex-wife refused to
sign it. Respondent then told Rivera he would draft a motion and obtain a hearing
date. Rivera gave respondent a check for the fee to file the motion but thereafter
could not contact respondent.

Rivera filed a grievance against respondent, and although a representative
of relator was able to speak briefly with respondent about it, respondent did not
answer relator's April 9, 2001 complaint. Relator's motion for default was
referred to Master Commissioner John R. Milligan for ruling.

The master commissioner found the facts as alleged in the complaint and
concluded that respondent's failure to act violated DR 6-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall
not attempt to handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the
circumstances), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter),
and 7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract of professional
employment). He also found that respondent's failure to cooperate with relator
violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or
testify in an investigation or hearing). Noting no mitigating factors for
consideration, the master commissioner recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period.

The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the master
commissioner, but noting also its findings and conclusions in case No. 01-1562,
recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law.

Upon review of the record in both of these matters, we adopt the findings
and conclusions of the board in both. We adopt the recommendation of the board
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
in case No. 01-1880 that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice
of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
F.E. SWEENEY, J., dissents and would indefinitely suspend respondent.
__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator in case No. 01-
1562.

Larry D. Wilkes and Ronald E. Slipski, for relator in case No. 01-1880.

J. Gerald Ingram, for respondent in case No. 01-1562 only.
__________________
4