2011 Ohio 2900
Ohio2011Background
- Respondent Frank Anthony Raso, admitted in 1998, faced a two-count disciplinary complaint filed April 2010.
- Counts relate to misconduct before and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Count 1: took a $900 retainer in 2003 to file a civil action; arbitration in 2005 yielded $8,000 to client and $3,000 to defendant; Raso did not document or pursue collection; case closed in 2008 for lack of action; he began collecting $5,500 in 2009 after investigation.
- Count 2: in November 2006, collected $450 for a small-claims action; failed to file or return funds; refunded on October 27, 2009 after investigation began.
- Panel dismissed the fee-excess allegations; board adopted the stipulated misconduct and recommended a six-month suspension, which the Supreme Court adopted.
- The Board noted mitigating factors (no prior discipline, restitution efforts, cooperation) and one contemporaneous suspension for attorney-registration noncompliance; no aggravating factors found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did pre- and post-2007 conduct in count one violate applicable ethics rules? | Raso engaged in dishonesty and neglect in count one. | Raso disputes the scope or severity of the alleged misconduct after 2007. | Yes; violations found under DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 8.4(c). |
| Did pre- and post-2007 conduct in count two violate applicable ethics rules? | Raso failed to pursue or refund fee and misrepresented actions. | Raso disputes post-2007 responsibility for misrepresentations. | Yes; violations found under DR 6-101(A)(3) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c). |
| Is a six-month suspension an appropriate sanction for the misconduct? | Six months warranted given dishonesty and neglect. | Raso would argue for lesser sanction or probation. | Six-month suspension warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. King, 74 Ohio St.3d 612 (Ohio 1996) (dishonesty toward client supports suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Stollings, 111 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 2006) (dishonesty and neglect justify suspension)
- Buttacavoli v. Stark County Bar Ass’n, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (Ohio 2002) (mitigating factors and appropriate sanction framework)
- In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Raso, 116 Ohio St.3d 1420 (Ohio 2007) (prior registration suspension considerations informing discipline)
- In re Reinstatement of Raso, 116 Ohio St.3d 1498 (Ohio 2008) (reinstatement history relevant to disciplinary sanction)