Toledo Bar Assn. v. Pommeranz - 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 Toledo Bar Assn. v. Pommeranz, 102 Ohio St.3d 26, 2004-Ohio-1586.]

TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. POMMERANZ.
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Pommeranz, 102 Ohio St.3d 26, 2004-Ohio-1586.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Engaging in a pattern
of seriously neglecting clients' cases and repeatedly deceiving clients --
Ignoring investigative inquiries and resulting disciplinary proceedings --
Previous discipline for other serious misconduct.
(No. 2003-1811 -- Submitted December 15, 2003 -- Decided April 14, 2004.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court, No. 02-63.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} Respondent, Melvin R. Pommeranz of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0031840, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1973. In Toledo Bar
Assn. v. Pommeranz (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 274, 649 N.E.2d 179, we suspended
respondent's license to practice law for one year, staying the entire suspension on
conditions, and ordered him to serve a one-year monitored probation for his neglect
of three clients' cases. In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Pommeranz (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 139,
753 N.E.2d 175, we suspended respondent's license for one year, staying six months
of this sanction on conditions, and ordered him to serve another one-year probation
for his neglect of another client's case. In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Pommeranz, 96 Ohio
St.3d 1471, 2002-Ohio-4002, 772 N.E.2d 1205, we found respondent in contempt for
his failure to comply with administrative requirements of our previous order.
{¶2} On November 15, 2002, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed an
amended complaint charging respondent with six counts of professional misconduct.
Respondent was served with the complaint but did not answer, and relator moved for
default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(2) relative to four of the six counts. A master
commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Discipline considered the motion, making findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a
recommendation.
{¶3} As to the first count, evidence substantiated that a client retained
respondent in September 2000 to represent him in connection with custody and
support issues existing between the client and his ex-wife. In January 2001, the
parties agreed at a hearing to an order resolving the dispute, and respondent promised
to prepare and file a judgment entry to document the agreement. The client later
learned that the entry had not been filed. When the client inquired of respondent in
March 2001, respondent told the client that the entry had been forwarded to the
client's ex-wife's counsel, a statement that was not true. Arrearages in the client's
child support payments accumulated due to respondent's delay, and respondent
stopped returning the client's telephone calls. Eventually, the ex-wife's attorney
prepared and filed the judgment entry.
{¶4} The master commissioner found that respondent had thereby violated
DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry
out a contract of professional employment), and 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
{¶5} As to a second count of misconduct, evidence substantiated that a
married couple paid respondent $250 for his assistance in obtaining custody of their
two grandchildren. Respondent promised to file a motion to obtain custody on his
clients' behalf. Thereafter, the couple attempted unsuccessfully to contact
respondent, finally reaching him in March 2001. At that time, respondent advised
them that the custody case had been set for a pretrial conference on April 26, 2001.
In fact, no pretrial conference had been scheduled because no custody motion had
been filed.
{¶6} The master commissioner found that respondent had thereby violated
DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 1-102(A)(4).
{¶7} As to a third count, evidence substantiated that another client retained
respondent in March 2001 to prepare a complaint for allocation of parental rights and
2

January Term, 2004
responsibilities. The client paid respondent $650. Thereafter, respondent notified the
client of modifications to the complaint and advised him that court dates had been
scheduled for action on it. Neither of these representations was true. The client
ultimately proceeded without legal counsel.
{¶8} The master commissioner found that respondent had thereby violated
DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 1-102(A)(4).
{¶9} As to a fourth count of misconduct, evidence substantiated that
another couple retained respondent to pursue an adoption, paying him a $500 retainer
and $180 for court costs. Respondent later represented to these clients that he had
filed a motion for change in disposition of permanent custody and that hearings on
the motion had been scheduled for March 15 and April 25, 2001. Thereafter,
respondent reported to his clients that the March 15 hearing had been cancelled.
They discovered, however, that he had not filed the custody motion. And when his
clients appeared on April 25, they found that no hearing had been scheduled. The
clients requested a refund in a letter that respondent received by certified mail in
September 2001, but he has not returned his clients' money.
{¶10} The master commissioner found that respondent had thereby violated
DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 1-102(A)(4), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to return funds a
client is entitled to receive). Moreover, because respondent failed to respond to
investigative inquiries concerning this misconduct, the master commissioner also
found respondent in violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in
disciplinary proceedings).
{¶11} The master commissioner recommended disbarment, noting that there
was no proof of mitigating circumstances in the record. See Section 10(B)(2) of the
Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The board adopted the
master commissioner's findings and recommendation. 1

1. The board further found, based on the master commissioner's report, that respondent had
additionally engaged in misconduct relative to the remaining two counts in the complaint. However,
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶12} We agree that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and DR 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 1-102(A)(4), and 9-102(B)(4) with respect to the preceding
clients. We also adopt the recommendation to disbar.
{¶13} When attorneys engage in a pattern of neglect and fail to cooperate in
an ensuing disciplinary investigation, the misconduct ordinarily warrants an
indefinite suspension. Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 211, 212,
718 N.E.2d 1271; Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 219,
221, 718 N.E.2d 1277; Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488,
490, 683 N.E.2d 1148. However, when an attorney has seriously neglected clients'
cases, has repeatedly deceived clients, has ignored investigative inquiries and
resulting disciplinary proceedings, has been disciplined before for other serious
misconduct, and has presented no mitigating evidence to justify leniency, the
appropriate sanction is disbarment. Disciplinary Counsel v. France, 97 Ohio St.3d
240, 2002-Ohio-5945, 778 N.E.2d 573.
{¶14} Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the
practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON,
O'CONNOR and O'DONNELL, JJ., concur.
__________________

James E. Brazeau and Gordon R. Barry, for relator.
__________________

relator did not move for default on these counts and presented no evidence to substantiate them. We
reject these findings pursuant to our independent review and final authority in disciplinary cases. Ohio
State Bar Assn. v. Reid (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 327, 708 N.E.2d 193, paragraph one of the syllabus.
4