Disciplinary Counsel v. Lantz

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                    OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LANTZ.
             [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lantz, 

.]
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 

 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. Although
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




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