Background
Raymond Roy Froelich Jr., who was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1973, submitted an application for retirement or resignation under Gov.Bar R. VI(11). The application was referred to disciplinary counsel, whose report was filed under seal.
The public order does not describe the alleged misconduct or the substance of the pending disciplinary matter. Justice Brunner did not participate.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted Froelich’s resignation as a resignation with disciplinary action pending under Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(C). Effective on the date of the order, the court withdrew his right to practice law in Ohio and ordered his name stricken from the roll of attorneys.
The court prohibited Froelich from practicing law, appearing as counsel, or providing legal advice. It also imposed restrictions on future work for attorneys or law firms and required him to surrender his admission certificate, protect client interests, return client property and unearned fees, account for trust property, notify clients and opposing parties, and document his compliance.
Key Takeaways
- The court accepted Froelich’s resignation with disciplinary action pending, not as an ordinary retirement or resignation.
- The order immediately ended Froelich’s authority to practice law in Ohio and required removal of his name from the attorney roll.
- Froelich must satisfy client-protection, notification, reimbursement, and compliance obligations imposed by the order.
Why It Matters
A resignation with disciplinary action pending formally removes an attorney from practice while preserving the disciplinary character of the departure. The order also illustrates the extensive duties imposed on a departing lawyer to protect clients, courts, opposing parties, and the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection.
Because disciplinary counsel’s report was sealed, the opinion establishes the consequences of the resignation but does not publicly identify the underlying allegations.