2011 Ohio 766
Ohio2011Background
- Respondent Ricardo R. Sanz, admitted in 1986, has prior suspensions for failure to register and for failing to meet CLE requirements.
- Relator Cincinnati Bar Association filed a complaint on April 12, 2010 alleging misappropriation of trust funds by Sanz as trustee.
- Respondent did not answer the complaint; default judgment motions were granted after service and failed communications.
- Master commissioner found misconduct: misappropriation of trust assets and failure to account, resulting in a probate court judgment for beneficiaries.
- Beneficiaries obtained a default judgment of $284,272.12 plus interest and costs, and Sanz was removed as trustee.
- Depositions revealed Sanz wrote over $180,000 in checks in 2004 and 2007–2008 to entities in which he had ownership interests and to a business partner, labeling them loans but without beneficiary notice or court approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Sanz violate 1.15(d) by failing to account for trust funds? | Sanz misappropriated and failed to render a full accounting. | Sanz may dispute the extent or intent of misappropriations. | Yes, 1.15(d) violated. |
| Did Sanz engage in dishonest or deceitful conduct violating 8.4(c)? | Discretionary misappropriation and improper transfers show dishonesty. | Any claimed dishonesty is disputed or not shown by the evidence. | Yes, 8.4(c) violated. |
| Was Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) violated by Sanz's failure to cooperate in disciplinary proceedings? | Respondent's noncooperation warranted sanction. | The record does not charge this specific rule against him. | Not charged; no ruling on violation. |
| What is the appropriate sanction for Sanz’s misconduct? | Disbarment is warranted given pattern of misconduct and harm to victims. | Disciplinary sanctions should be measured; consider factors. | Permanent disbarment warranted. |
| Do aggravating factors outweigh any mitigating factors in this case? | Aggravating factors are present; no mitigating factors were shown. | No specific mitigating factors were demonstrated. | Aggravating factors present; no mitigating factors identified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kafantaris, 121 Ohio St.3d 387 (2009-Ohio-1389) (presumptive disbarment for misappropriation; pattern of misconduct supports discipline)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio St.3d 490 (2002-Ohio-2490) (disbarment when client funds are misappropriated; restitution considerations)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctions; pattern of misconduct guidance)
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (sanctions framework; consideration of aggravating vs. mitigating factors)