Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rauzan and Wagner (Slip Opinion)
2020 Ohio 355 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct, including illegal acts reflecting on trustworthiness and client trust account violations, is determined by weighing aggravating and mitigating factors. A conditionally stayed suspension may be warranted for multiple offenses with significant mitigation, while a public reprimand is appropriate for less severe misconduct with no aggravating factors.
Facts:
- While serving as police chief for Campbell, Ohio, Andrew Rauzan conducted searches on the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway (OHLEG) system that were not connected to any legitimate law-enforcement purpose.
- A special prosecutor later concluded that the subjects of Rauzan's searches had not been harmed by his actions.
- In May 2017, Richard and Cynthia Foster retained Carol Wagner and Andrew Rauzan for a personal-injury matter, paying a $5,000 retainer as an advancement toward fees and expenses.
- On May 19, 2017, Wagner deposited the $5,000 retainer into her client trust account.
- Within about two weeks, Wagner transferred $2,350 of the unearned retainer to her firm's operating account and the remaining $2,500 to Rauzan's client trust account.
- Rauzan, who was commingling personal and client funds and using his trust account as an operating account, effectively took his portion of the retainer as an earned fee before the work was completed.
- At the time of her retention, Wagner failed to inform the Fosters in writing that she did not maintain professional-liability insurance.
- After the Fosters terminated the representation, Rauzan and Wagner refunded the entire $5,000 retainer.
Procedural Posture:
- The Mahoning County Bar Association filed a complaint against Andrew Rauzan with the Board of Professional Conduct, which was later amended to add further charges.
- The Bar Association also filed a complaint against Carol Clemente Wagner.
- The Board of Professional Conduct consolidated the two cases.
- The parties stipulated to some of the misconduct, and a hearing was held before a three-member panel of the Board.
- The panel found respondents had engaged in misconduct and recommended a conditionally stayed six-month suspension for Rauzan and a public reprimand for Wagner.
- The Board of Professional Conduct adopted the panel's findings and recommendations and certified its report to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
What is the appropriate disciplinary sanction for an attorney who committed an illegal act reflecting adversely on his honesty and engaged in multiple client-trust-account violations, and for another attorney who mishandled advanced fees and failed to notify a client of her lack of malpractice insurance?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
A conditionally stayed six-month suspension for Rauzan and a public reprimand for Wagner are the appropriate sanctions. The court found Rauzan violated rules against committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on honesty (Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b)) and rules for handling a client trust account (Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)). Both Rauzan and Wagner violated the rule requiring advanced fees to be held in trust until earned (Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c)), and Wagner violated the rule requiring disclosure of a lack of malpractice insurance (Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c)). For Rauzan, the court weighed the single aggravating factor of multiple offenses against numerous mitigating factors, including a clean disciplinary record, lack of selfish motive, cooperation, restitution, good character, other penalties already imposed for his criminal conduct, and genuine remorse. For Wagner, the court found no aggravating factors and significant mitigating factors, including a long, discipline-free career, cooperation, and restitution. The court concluded that the primary purpose of sanctions is to protect the public, not punish the offender, and found the recommended sanctions consistent with precedent and sufficient to serve this purpose.
Dissenting in part - O'Connor, C.J., and Fischer, J.
A conditionally stayed twelve-month suspension is the appropriate sanction for Rauzan. The dissenters would impose a harsher sanction on Rauzan, consistent with the precedent set in Columbus Bar Assn. v. McCord. That case, which also involved client-trust-account violations and a misdemeanor conviction, resulted in a conditionally stayed one-year suspension, which the dissent believes is the more appropriate outcome here.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the Ohio Supreme Court's holistic approach to attorney discipline, where the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors is paramount in determining sanctions. It demonstrates that even a combination of criminal conduct and financial mismanagement may not result in an actual suspension if strong mitigating factors like a clean record, full cooperation, and lack of client harm are present. The split decision highlights an ongoing judicial debate regarding the weight of specific precedents, particularly the role a prior disciplinary record plays in distinguishing similar cases. The ruling provides guidance that a strong showing of mitigation can significantly reduce a sanction, underscoring the disciplinary system's focus on rehabilitation and public protection over punishment.
