Supreme Court Disbars Lancaster Attorney, Suspends Licenses of Three
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."
In separate decisions announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio permanently disbarred Lancaster attorney Charles J. Lantz, and suspended the licenses of attorneys A. Robert Hutchins of Columbus, Ross Cirincione of Garfield Heights and James Cornell Young of Cleveland for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
2003-0699. Disciplinary Counsel v. Lantz, 2004-Ohio-1806.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-36.
Charles J. Lantz, Attorney Registration No. 0016201, is permanently disbarred.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor and O'Donnell, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-Ohio-1806/pdf 
(April 28, 2004) The court voted 7-0 to permanently revoke the law license of Lancaster attorney Charles Lantz, who had been under suspension since 2001 as a result of felony convictions and an earlier disciplinary action involving multiple incidents of professional misconduct. In today's ruling, the court found that Lantz engaged in 11 additional counts of misconduct that were not addressed in his prior discipline case. These included multiple incidents in which Lantz accepted advance fees of as much as $5,750 from clients and then failed to perform the legal services for which he had contracted and also failed to refund the unearned fees.
In several instances clients suffered significant harm as a result of Lantz's acts and omissions, including loss of child custody in one case and the client's arrest on criminal charges in another.
Adopting findings and conclusions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, the court held that, among other offenses, Lantz had violated state disciplinary rules that prohibit neglect of entrusted legal matters, failure to seek clients' lawful objectives, causing damage or prejudice to clients, commingling client and personal funds, failure to promptly return clients' funds, illegal conduct involving moral turpitude and engaging in conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Lantz was also found to have violated the state bar governance rule that requires attorneys to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings.
In its per curiam decision, the court found that Lantz “engaged in a continuous course of neglect and misappropriation without restitution” and held unanimously that permanent disbarment was the appropriate sanction for his misconduct.
Contacts
Jonathan E. Coughlan, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
No counsel listed for Mr. Lantz.
2003-1196. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hutchins, 2004-Ohio-1805.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-71.
A. Robert Hutchins, Attorney Registration No. 0015775, is suspended from the practice of law for six months.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor and O'Donnell, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-Ohio-1805.
(April 28, 2004) The court voted 7-0 today to suspend the license of Columbus attorney A. Robert Hutchins for six months for fabricating a court document and engaging in other deceptive conduct while representing a divorce client in the sale of her home and division of the proceeds with her husband.
The justices affirmed findings of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that Hutchins violated state disciplinary rules that prohibit knowingly making false statements, conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty or misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice when he used for his own profit a fabricated magistrate's order and documentary misrepresentations in anticipation of a real estate closing on the couple's home.
The court found that Hutchins used the fabricated court document to facilitate his receipt of a $3,650 fee and deduction of that fee from the closing proceeds. It also found that Hutchins acted deceptively when he identified this fee in preliminary documents before the closing as a “listing commission,” implying to his client's husband and the husband's attorney that those funds would be paid to a third party listing agent.
Rejecting claims by Hutchins that he had disclosed his fee to opposing counsel, the court found that he “acted with deliberate cunning in securing his fee from the closing proceeds. As (Disciplinary Counsel) argues, (Hutchins) never identified the $3,650 expense in his negotiations … as anything other than the seller's agent's commission or listing fee.”
The court cited its holding in prior cases that disciplinary violations involving fraud, deceit dishonesty or misrepresentation call for an actual suspension from practice, and imposed a six-month suspension as the appropriate sanction for Hutchins' misconduct.
Contacts
Jonathan Coughlan, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Charles W. Kettlewell and Charles J. Kettlewell, 614.436.2750, for A. Robert Hutchins.
2003-1865. Disciplinary Counsel v. Young, 2004-Ohio-1809.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-42.
James Cornell Young, Attorney Registration No. 0034227, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor and O'Donnell, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-Ohio-1809/pdf
(April 28, 2004) Cleveland attorney James Cornell Young has been indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for two incidents of professional misconduct, including a 2001 case in which he conspired with a client to pay a witness in exchange for the witness fabricating a story which would exonerate the client of criminal charges. Young admitted preparing a false affidavit and inducing the witness to sign it.
The incident resulted in Young’s conviction on a felony count of conspiracy to obstruct justice, for which he received a 10-month prison term and subsequent post-release control sanctions. He has been under an interim license suspension since his felony conviction.
In a 7-0 per curiam decision announced today, the Supreme Court found that Young violated multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility in both the 2001 incident that resulted in his conviction and an earlier 1993 incident in which he attempted to raise bond money to secure a client’s release from jail by soliciting contributions from defendants against whom his client was a key prosecution witness in a murder case. It was alleged that Young suggested to the murder defendants that if his client got out of jail, he would be likely to leave Ohio and thus be unavailable to testify against them.
The court affirmed findings and conclusions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that Young’s actions violated, among others, the disciplinary rules that prohibit illegal conduct involving moral turpitude, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, counseling or assisting a client in conduct he knew to be illegal and participating in the creation of evidence he knew to be false.
In determining the appropriate sanction for his misconduct, the court acknowledged the seriousness of Young’s violations and the fact that similar cases have resulted in disbarment. Noting that Young had acknowledged past drug and alcohol abuse problems, had become very actively involved in recovery programs and passed more than 50 random drug tests since leaving prison, had expressed remorse for his offenses, cooperated fully with the disciplinary process and applied himself conscientiously to post-release work as a paralegal, the court voted to impose an indefinite suspension. The court included in its sanction the requirement that Young continue to be monitored by the Ohio Lawyers’ Assistance program.
An attorney under indefinite suspension is not eligible to apply for license reinstatement for a minimum of two years after the date of suspension.
Contacts
Jonathan Coughlan, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
John J. Chester, 614.221.4000, for James C. Young.
2003-1867. Disciplinary Counsel v. Cirincione, 2004-Ohio-1810.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-95.
Ross Salvatore Cirincione, Attorney Registration No. 0024774, is suspended from the practice of law for one year with six months stayed, on condition.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor and O'Donnell, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-Ohio-1810/pdf
(April 28, 2004) The Supreme Court announced today that it has suspended the license of Garfield Heights attorney Ross Cirincione for one year, with six months stayed on conditions, for maintaining a romantic relationship with and providing financial support to a client while representing her, helping the client misrepresent her planned living arrangements during a court hearing and failing to disclose the client’s violations of conditions of her judicial release.
The court agreed with findings of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline that, between 1997 and 2001, Cirincione was involved in an ongoing relationship with a woman named Tiffany Wayne (later Tiffany Antoniewicz). During that period, Cirincione admitted giving Tiffany $11,000 in cash and other things of value while also acting as her legal counsel in several civil and criminal legal matters.
In June 2000, Tiffany was charged with criminal offenses and sentenced to 18 months incarceration. While she was in prison, Cirincione sent her money and filed a motion seeking Tiffany’s early judicial release. He also represented her at a subsequent court hearing. At that hearing, the judge granted early release and Tiffany accepted it on the conditions that she reside within Cuyahoga County and live with her sister. Earlier, Cirincione had provided false information to a landlord to secure for Tiffany a lease on a house in Vermillion, outside Cuyahoga County, where she could live after leaving prison. Despite direct knowledge that neither of the court-imposed conditions would be honored, Cirincione signed the release order and his client falsely affirmed that the conditions would be met.
When these facts came to light during a subsequent criminal investigation, Cirincione was indicted by a grand jury for his role in falsely securing the release order, and subsequently pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor.
In today’s decision, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with conclusions of the disciplinary board that Cirincione’s conduct in securing the lease, in assisting Tiffany in violating the conditions of her release and in making misrepresentations to the court during the judicial release hearing constituted violations of state disciplinary rules that prohibit conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice law and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. The court also held that Cirincione’s ongoing relationship with Tiffany and actions on her behalf violated ethical rules against providing improper financial assistance to a client and accepting employment when an attorney’s professional judgment is affected by personal interests.
In setting a sanction for this misconduct, the court noted that Cirincione acted knowingly when he helped his client mislead the court in order to obtain her release from prison, and continued to assist her in violating the conditions of that release. In light of mitigating factors including his strong character references, lack of any previous disciplinary violations and record of public service, the justices suspended Cirincione’s license for one year with six months stayed on condition that he commit no disciplinary violations during that period.
Contacts
Jonathan Coughlan, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Richard Koblentz, 216.621.3012, for Ross S. Cirincione.