You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bozanich

Citation: 95 Ohio St. 3d 109Docket: No. 01-1562; No. 01-1880

Court: Ohio Supreme Court; April 24, 2002; Ohio; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves disciplinary proceedings against an attorney accused of unethical conduct, including making payments to a judge and failing to fulfill client obligations. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel initiated a complaint against the attorney for providing monetary gifts to a judge before whom he practiced, which were linked to the judge's later conviction on federal extortion charges. Despite cooperating with the investigation, the attorney failed to report the misconduct timely. Additionally, the attorney faced another complaint for neglecting a client's child emancipation case, resulting in non-communication and a grievance. The master commissioner found the attorney in violation of several disciplinary rules, including neglect and non-cooperation with the investigation, with no mitigating factors presented. Based on these findings and the attorney's prior conduct, the disciplinary board recommended and adopted permanent disbarment, with costs assigned to the attorney. The decision was largely concurred by the judiciary, though one justice dissented, suggesting an indefinite suspension instead.

Legal Issues Addressed

Engaging in Illegal Conduct and Failure to Report Misconduct

Application: The attorney engaged in illegal conduct by making payments to a judge and did not report the misconduct until after the judge pleaded guilty to federal charges.

Reasoning: Bozanich provided Kerrigan with monetary gifts totaling $2,400 and attempted to assist the judge with financial needs related to cases in his court.

Failure to Fulfill Obligations to a Client

Application: The attorney failed to adequately represent a client in a child emancipation case and did not communicate effectively, leading to a grievance.

Reasoning: Rivera paid Bozanich $400 but was unable to contact him for updates, leading to a grievance filing.

Neglect of an Entrusted Legal Matter

Application: The attorney neglected his duties in handling a legal matter, violating several disciplinary rules related to inadequate preparation and neglect.

Reasoning: The master commissioner established that the respondent violated several disciplinary rules: DR 6-101(A)(2) for inadequate preparation in handling a legal matter, DR 6-101(A)(3) for neglecting an entrusted legal matter.

Non-Cooperation with Disciplinary Investigation

Application: The attorney did not cooperate with the investigation, further violating the disciplinary rules and contributing to the recommendation for disbarment.

Reasoning: Additionally, the respondent was found to have violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by not cooperating with the relator during an investigation.

Recommendation for Disbarment

Application: Due to the cumulative violations and absence of mitigating factors, the attorney was recommended for permanent disbarment.

Reasoning: Ultimately, the board's recommendation for permanent disbarment in case No. 01-1880 was adopted.

Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Application: The attorney was found to have violated the Code by making unauthorized payments to a judge and failing to report judicial misconduct promptly.

Reasoning: The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against attorney Peter J. Bozanich for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by making payments to Judge Patrick Kerrigan, before whom he practiced.