Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rozanc
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rozanc, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2408.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-2408 LAKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROZANC. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rozanc, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2408.] Attorneys at law Misconduct Fraud Conduct prejudicial to administration of justice Indefinite suspension. (No. 2011-1735 Submitted December 7, 2011 Decided June 5, 2012.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-017. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Frank Rozanc of Eastlake, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0047173, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1990. On August 27, 2009, we suspended Rozanc s license to practice law for one year with six months stayed on conditions for failing to diligently represent and properly communicate with a client serving as the executor of a decedent s estate. Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rozanc, 123 Ohio St.3d 78, 2009-Ohio-4207, 914 N.E.2d 192. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO And in November 2009, we imposed an attorney-registration suspension for his failure to register for the 2009-to-2011 biennium. In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Rozanc, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256. Both suspensions remain in effect. {¶ 2} In a February 14, 2011 complaint, relator, Lake County Bar Association, alleged that while serving as the executor of the estate of Richard L. Kariher, Rozanc had been found to have committed a fraud upon the probate court and concealed assets of the estate. These findings were based upon Rozanc s submission of a final accounting to the probate court that falsely stated that he had distributed $19,228.28 to the guardian of the estate s sole beneficiary. He had attached a receipt acknowledging receipt of the distribution that purported to have been signed by the guardian of the beneficiary, but the signature was a forgery. After the forgery came to light, relator alleged, Rozanc tendered a check to the guardian, but it was returned unpaid with a notation that the bank was unable to locate the account on which it was drawn. {¶ 3} Although the complaint was served at the business address Rozanc has registered with this court, he failed to file an answer, and relator moved for default. {¶ 4} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found that relator had proven the allegations in its complaint by clear and convincing evidence and that Rozanc s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating or attempting to violate the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct), (b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer s honesty or trustworthiness), (c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and (d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). The 2 January Term, 2012 board adopted the master commissioner s findings of fact and misconduct, and so do we. {¶ 5} Based upon these findings of fact and misconduct, the board recommends that we indefinitely suspend Rozanc from the practice of law in Ohio. {¶ 6} In imposing a sanction for attorney misconduct, we consider the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 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. The board found only one mitigating factor that Rozanc has paid restitution to the beneficiary as ordered by the probate court. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c). As aggravating factors, the board found that Rozanc acted with a dishonest and selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, failed to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, and caused harm to the vulnerable beneficiary of the decedent s estate. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (g), and (h). In addition to these factors, we also find that Rozanc has a prior disciplinary record and has failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a) and (e). {¶ 7} We have previously imposed an indefinite suspension for an attorney who neglected a probate estate, concealed its assets, and compounded his misconduct by failing to cooperate in disciplinary process. Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer, 86 Ohio St.3d 312, 314, 715 N.E.2d 124 (1999). Therefore, we agree with the board s recommendation that an indefinite suspension is warranted in this case. {¶ 8} Accordingly, Frank Rozanc is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to Rozanc. Judgment accordingly. 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. __________________ James P. Koerner, for relator. ______________________ 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
