Disciplinary Counsel v. Lantz

102 Ohio St. 3d 93 (Ohio 2004) · Supreme Court of Ohio · April 28, 2004

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court considered additional disciplinary charges against an attorney whose license had previously been indefinitely suspended. The court upheld findings that he engaged in client-fund misappropriation, neglect of multiple client matters, failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation, and failure to register, and permanently disbarred him.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Moyer, C.J.; Resnick, J.; F.E. Sweeney, J.; Pfeifer, J.; Lundberg Stratton, J.; O'Connor, J.; O'Donnell, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
April 28, 2004
Procedural posture
Attorney-discipline proceeding arising from relator's motion for default on eleven counts of professional misconduct. The board adopted the master commissioner's findings and recommendation of permanent disbarment, and the Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed and approved that recommendation.
Precedential value
Published and precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio
Parties
Disciplinary Counsel v. Charles J. Lantz
Disposition
other

Topics

default judgmentsanctionsadministrative lawcivil procedure

Practice areas

legal ethics and attorney disciplineprofessional responsibility

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence supported the master commissioner's and board's findings that Lantz committed the charged professional misconduct.
  2. What sanction was warranted for Lantz's continuous course of neglect, misappropriation of client funds without restitution, and failure to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation.

Holdings

  1. The court agreed with the master commissioner and the board that Lantz committed the cited violations of the Disciplinary Rules and the applicable Ohio bar rules.
  2. Permanent disbarment was warranted because Lantz engaged in a continuous course of neglect and misappropriation without restitution and failed to cooperate in the investigation.

Key quotations

Disbarment is ordinarily the sanction when an attorney’s misconduct permeates his practice in the way that respondent’s misconduct did in this case. (102 Ohio St. 3d at 96, ¶ 15)
Here, respondent engaged in a continuous course of neglect and misappropriation without restitution and then failed to cooperate in the investigation of grievances. Disbarment is in order. (102 Ohio St. 3d at 96, ¶ 16)

Factual background

Lantz had previously been indefinitely suspended for failing to account for client funds and property, neglecting client matters, and acting dishonestly. In this proceeding, evidence established eleven additional instances of misconduct, including misappropriation and commingling of client funds, failure to perform promised legal services, neglect of multiple client matters, failure to return client property or unearned fees, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigators. Lantz did not answer the complaint or otherwise meaningfully participate in the disciplinary investigation, and no mitigating evidence of mental illness was found.

Procedural history

Disciplinary Counsel charged Lantz with eleven additional counts of professional misconduct after he failed to answer the complaint. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline appointed a master commissioner, who found the charged violations and recommended permanent disbarment; the board adopted that recommendation. The Supreme Court previously remanded the matter for investigation into a possible mental-illness suspension, but the investigation found no medical evidence of mental illness. The court then agreed with the findings and permanently disbarred Lantz.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…