Sanction At Issue In Ohio

Oral argument tomorrow before the Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Carolyn Kaye Ranke, Case No. 2024-0491
Cuyahoga County

A solo practice lawyer, previously suspended for neglecting client matters, faces permanent disbarment for dishonesty, neglecting more client matters, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary process.

Carolyn Kaye Ranke of Cleveland Heights opposes a Board of Professional Conduct recommendation that she be disbarred, arguing that an indefinite suspension is an appropriate sanction.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel maintains that, at minimum, Ranke should receive an indefinite suspension. The office, which investigated the matter, argues that disbarment is justified for her pattern of accepting payment without completing work for clients and displaying a pattern of dishonest conduct while offering minimal explanations for why she violated numerous professional conduct rules.

Ranke’s objections to the board’s recommendation triggered oral arguments before the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Attorney Faces New Round of Client Complaints
Ranke was admitted to practice law in Ohio in 1989 and had been a solo practitioner, primarily focused on criminal defense. In 2010, the Supreme Court publicly reprimanded her for neglecting a client’s legal matter. In 2011, the Court indefinitely suspended Ranke for improperly handling her client trust account, neglecting a client matter, and failing to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation. Ranke then began working as a courtroom bailiff, and when her license was reinstated in 2015, she worked as a court magistrate. She returned to private practice in 2019.

The board wrote that within months of returning to private, solo practice, Ranke returned to her past pattern of neglecting client matters.

In June 2019, Shelda Brantley hired Ranke to represent her in a civil lawsuit against Brantley’s business by three former employees seeking damages for unpaid wages. Brantley began making $500 payments to Ranke and, after six months, had paid her $8,100. Within weeks of being hired, Ranke notified the trial court that she was representing Brantley and told Brantley that she would file a motion to dismiss the case. Ranke didn’t file the motion.

Brantley complained that she had texted Ranke for updates for months but hadn’t received substantive responses. The attorney for the former workers told the court that Ranke wasn’t complying with court orders or responding to court motions. In May 2020, the court awarded the workers $268,802 in damages and $37,873 in attorney fees and court costs for a total judgment against Brantley for $306,326.

Ranke didn’t inform Brantley of the judgment, and Brantley later testified that she didn’t know about it until she contacted another attorney. Brantley said she was “shocked,” “nervous,” and “afraid.”  Brantley’s new lawyer filed a malpractice case against Ranke. Ranke didn’t respond to the request or to any efforts by the new attorney to cooperate in the case. She later testified, “I just put it off and buried it, and I didn’t respond.”

Ranke’s inaction led to the court ordering her to pay Brantley the same amount she had lost to the former workers.

Inmate’s Appeal Not Filed
The disciplinary counsel filed a complaint against Ranke with the Board of Professional Conduct in December 2022 based on Ranke’s handling of Brantley’s case and her handling of three other client matters, including her representation of Raphelle Winegarner.

In June 2021, Winegarner was convicted of multiple felonies and sentenced to 33 years in prison. Winegarner was represented by another attorney during his trial, but Ranke was appointed by the court to represent him in his appeal. Ranke received notice of her appointment in September 2021 and had until early October to file a notice of appeal with the Eighth District Court of Appeals. She didn’t file the notice.

In November 2021, Winegarner’s mother, Paulette Winegarner, texted Ranke to ask about the appeal. Ranke texted back that she would send a copy to her. Ranke said she was in court on another matter. Later that evening, Paulette texted again that she hadn’t received anything from Ranke, and Ranke responded that she would send it. The next day, Paulette asked again for the appeal, and Ranke answered that she had emailed the appeal even though she hadn’t. Paulette contacted the court and learned Ranke hadn’t filed a notice of appeal, and the deadline had passed. Paulette hired another attorney to represent her son, and the Eighth District granted the attorney the request to allow for a delayed appeal.

Attorney Violated Multiple Rules, Board Asserts
The board found Ranke committed 21 professional conduct rule violations in the four cases, including making false statements to the trial courts and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

In urging the Supreme Court to disbar Ranke, the board noted that at her disciplinary hearing, she was asked,” Do you acknowledge that the sanction of an indefinite suspension wasn’t enough to have – to force you to change your behavior?” Ranke responded, “Apparently not.”

The board notes that Ranke persistently provided limited cooperation after four clients filed grievances against her, and the board argues that she deserves to be disbarred for her actions.

Errors Don’t Justify Disbarment, Attorney Maintains
Among her objections, Ranke disagrees with the board’s conclusion that she acted with a dishonest or selfish motive. She denies any dishonesty and points out that no evidence reveals that her rule violations were related to monetary gain or to benefit herself. She argues that neglect isn’t equivalent to selfishness or dishonesty and that her mistakes result from being “overburdened and having no discipline at saying no.” She asserts the board failed to credit her for acknowledging her mistakes and taking accountability for her actions.

Ranke maintains that an indefinite suspension is appropriate. She notes that the Supreme Court has rarely disbarred an attorney without evidence of theft, engaging in inappropriate conduct with a client, or gross mismanagement of a client’s affairs. Ranke argues that the board fails to acknowledge her 30 years of practice and serving client needs and that she made efforts to repay clients who were negatively affected by her misconduct.

Attorney Minimizes Role in Clients’ Misfortunes, Investigator Argues
The disciplinary counsel notes that in at least five instances, the board found Ranke made false and misleading statements to her clients, opposing attorneys, judges, and disciplinary investigators. Ranke engaged in a pattern of telling others she had sent requested information when she hadn’t, and those statements were made to cover up her mishandling of the cases. The office notes that Ranke told Paulette Winegarner repeatedly that she had sent or would send a copy of the notice of appeal she filed for Winegarner’s son. Ranke ultimately had to admit she wasn’t honest with Paulette because she didn’t tell her she didn’t file the appeal.

The pattern of misleading her clients was a selfish attempt to conceal the negative consequences of her acts from her clients, the disciplinary counsel argues, and Ranke fails to acknowledge that she didn’t comply with the rules that apply to all Ohio attorneys. The Court has already given Ranke a second chance when it indefinitely suspended her in 2011, the disciplinary counsel argues. Disbarment may be necessary to protect the public, given that she continues to engage in dishonest conduct, the disciplinary counsel concludes.

– Dan Trevas