DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. RASO.
No. 2010-2203
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted February 16, 2011—Decided June 22, 2011.
129 Ohio St.3d 277, 2011-Ohio-2900
{¶ 1} Respondent, Frank Anthony Raso of Brunswick, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0069270, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1998. In April 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a two-count complaint charging respondent with multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his representation of two clients.1
{¶ 2} After reviewing the parties’ stipulations of fact and misconduct, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline dismissed, sua sponte, allegations that respondent had charged an illegal or clearly excessive fee and recommended that respondent‘s license to practice law be suspended for six months. The board accepted the panel‘s findings and its recommended sanction, and no objections have been filed.
{¶ 3} We find that respondent has committed misconduct as stipulated by the parties and found by the panel and board and conclude that a six-month suspension is warranted.
Misconduct
{¶ 4} The stipulated evidence demonstrates that in 2003, respondent accepted a $900 retainer to file a civil action on behalf of a client, which he did. In May 2005, the client received an arbitration award of $8,000, and the defendant received a $3,000 arbitration award on his counterclaim. Respondent did not provide his client with documentation of this award. Respondent did not attempt to collect the judgment, but continued to act as if the case were pending, sending
{¶ 5} With regard to count two, the parties stipulated and the panel and board found that in November 2006, a client paid respondent $450 to pursue a small-claims action on his behalf. Respondent did not file the action, nor did he heed the client‘s requests that he return the fee. In 2007, the client retained new counsel to pursue the refund. From January through May 2009, respondent made several false representations that he would return the fee, including one representation that a check was in the mail. He refunded the client‘s fee on October 27, 2009—after relator began his investigation.
{¶ 6} The panel and board adopted the parties’ stipulation that respondent‘s conduct with respect to count one prior to February 1, 2007, violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting neglect of an entrusted legal matter) and that his conduct after February 1, 2007, violated
{¶ 7} Regarding count two, the panel and board adopted the parties’ stipulation that respondent‘s conduct before February 1, 2007, violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and that his conduct after that date violated
Sanction
{¶ 8} In recommending a sanction, the panel and board considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.“). See Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.
{¶ 9} As mitigating factors, the panel and board adopted the parties’ stipulation that respondent had no prior disciplinary record, has made a timely, good-faith effort to make restitution or to rectify the consequences of his misconduct, has provided full and free disclosure during the investigation, and has displayed a cooperative attitude. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d). They found none of the aggravating factors set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1). We adopt
{¶ 10} Citing Disciplinary Counsel v. King (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 612, 660 N.E.2d 1160, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Stollings, 111 Ohio St.3d 155, 2006-Ohio-5345, 855 N.E.2d 479, ¶ 3-10, the board recommends that we suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months. Like respondent, both King and Stollings had neglected a client‘s legal matter and had then lied to the client about the status of the case. King at 613-614; Stollings at ¶ 3-10. In each case, we observed that an actual suspension is particularly appropriate for an attorney‘s dishonesty toward a client, and we imposed a six-month suspension. King at 614; Stollings at ¶ 13. Therefore, we agree that a six-month suspension is the appropriate sanction for respondent‘s misconduct.
{¶ 11} Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather L. Hissom, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Frank Anthony Raso, pro se.