## Facts

- Andrew William Rauzan (admitted in Ohio in 2013) practiced law and also served as chief of police in Campbell, Ohio.
- While serving as police chief, Rauzan used the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway (OHLEG)—a secure law-enforcement information network—to run searches that were not connected to any legitimate law-enforcement purpose.
- A special prosecutor concluded Rauzan did not engage in additional improper conduct (such as contacting the people he searched) and that the subjects of the searches were not harmed.
- Although unauthorized OHLEG access can be charged as a felony, the matter was resolved through a plea agreement in which Rauzan pleaded guilty to four first-degree misdemeanor counts of attempted unauthorized use of property, received community control, and paid a fine.
- As part of the criminal-case resolution and related consequences, Rauzan resigned as police chief, surrendered his Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy (OPOTA) certificate (disqualifying him from Ohio law-enforcement employment), and self-reported his convictions to the Mahoning County Bar Association.
- The bar association filed a disciplinary complaint, later amending it to add allegations that Rauzan mishandled his client trust account after an overdraft notice led to an investigation of his banking records.
- The trust-account investigation showed Rauzan commingled personal and client funds, used the trust account like an operating account, and failed to maintain required trust-account records and reconciliations; he later corrected the account deficiencies.
- In a second amended complaint, the bar association added allegations arising from a personal-injury representation handled jointly by Rauzan and Carol Clemente Wagner (admitted in Ohio in 1988), who shared office space with Rauzan but maintained a separate practice; Wagner was separately charged, and the Board of Professional Conduct consolidated the matters.
- In that joint representation, the clients paid an advance retainer toward fees and expenses plus a contingency fee; Wagner transferred portions of the retainer out of her trust account to her operating account and to Rauzan before the fees were earned, resulting in findings that both attorneys withdrew unearned fees prematurely.
- Wagner also failed to give the clients the required notice that she did not carry professional-liability (malpractice) insurance.
- The parties stipulated to some (but not all) rule violations; a panel of the Board of Professional Conduct held a hearing, found misconduct consistent with the stipulations, dismissed the remaining charged violations, and recommended a six-month suspension for Rauzan fully stayed on a no-further-misconduct condition and a public reprimand for Wagner.
- The full Board adopted the panel’s report, and no party filed objections.

## Issues

1. Did Rauzan’s OHLEG-related misdemeanor convictions and his client trust-account practices constitute professional misconduct under the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, and if so, what sanction was warranted?
2. Did Wagner’s handling of the clients’ retainer and her failure to provide the required malpractice-insurance notice constitute professional misconduct, and if so, what sanction was warranted?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the Board of Professional Conduct’s findings of misconduct and its recommended sanctions.
- The court suspended Rauzan from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, fully stayed on the condition that he commit no further misconduct.
- The court publicly reprimanded Wagner.
- The court assessed costs against the respondents.

## Legal Principles

- An attorney violates Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) by committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness; misuse of a restricted law-enforcement database for nonofficial purposes can satisfy this standard.
- Under Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), client funds must be held in a proper trust account separate from a lawyer’s own funds, with required recordkeeping and regular reconciliations; commingling and using a trust account as an operating account violate this rule.
- Fees that are not yet earned must remain in a trust account; removing unearned fees from a client trust account constitutes improper handling of client funds.
- Ohio’s professional-conduct rules require a lawyer without malpractice insurance to give clients the specified notice; failure to provide that notice is professional misconduct.
- In Ohio attorney-discipline cases, the Supreme Court selects sanctions by considering the ethical violations found, aggravating and mitigating factors, and sanctions imposed in comparable cases; when no objections are filed, the Court may adopt the Board’s recommended outcome if supported by the record.
- A stayed suspension is typically conditioned on no further misconduct; violating the condition can result in the stay being lifted.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the Board of Professional Conduct’s findings that Rauzan’s improper OHLEG searches leading to misdemeanor convictions, together with trust-account violations, warranted a six-month suspension fully stayed on the condition of no further misconduct, and that Wagner’s premature withdrawal of unearned fees and failure to provide the required malpractice-insurance notice warranted a public reprimand.


Mahoning County Bar Association v. Rauzan, 150 N.E.3d 888, 159 Ohio St. 3d 296 (2020)