The Supreme Court of Ohio today disbarred a Cleveland attorney who had been previously indefinitely suspended and publicly reprimanded during her legal career.

Carolyn Kaye Ranke was disbarred for ethical violations related to four client matters, including lying to a judge and failing to file an appeal for a man serving a 33-year prison sentence. Ranke also accepted client payments but did no work on their cases.

Writing for the Supreme Court majority, Justice Patrick F. Fischer noted the Court has repeatedly stated that “accepting payment from clients and failing to perform work is ‘tantamount to theft,’ for which the presumptive sanction is disbarment.”

Justice Fischer wrote when combining her misconduct in this matter with her disciplinary history, Ranke had acted wrongfully in six client matters and committed at least 40 ethical violations.

“Ranke clearly did not learn her lesson from the prior public reprimand, nor from the previously imposed indefinite suspension. An indefinite suspension is not a sanction that should be imposed twice,” he wrote.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justice Joseph T. Deters joined Justice Fischer’s opinion. Justices Michael P. Donnelly and Jennifer Brunner did not participate in the case. First District Court of Appeals Judge Jennifer M. Kinsley and Second District Court of Appeals Judge Mary Katherine Huffman, sitting for Justices Donnelly and Brunner, joined Justice Fischer’s opinion.

In a separate opinion, Justice Melody Stewart wrote the Court should have accepted the indefinite suspension proposed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which brought the charges against Ranke. Justice R. Patrick DeWine joined Justice Stewart’s opinion.

Lawyer’s Inaction Leads to $307,000 Judgment
The Court publicly reprimanded Ranke in 2010 for neglecting a client matter. In 2011, she was indefinitely suspended for ethical violations, including failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation. She was reinstated in 2015.

The disciplinary counsel initially filed new charges against her with the Board of Professional Conduct in 2022 and added charges in 2023, accusing Ranke of misconduct related to four client matters. This included Ranke’s representation of Shelda Brantley and her business, which were sued by three former employees seeking damages for unpaid wages.

In June 2019, Brantley hired Ranke and paid her $500. Over the next six months, Brantley paid Ranke a total of $8,100 in legal fees. Ranke filed a notice in court that she represented Brantley and told her client she would file a motion to dismiss the case, but never did.

The attorney for the former workers requested discovery from Brantley and did not receive a response. Ranke repeatedly failed to comply with discovery requests and trial court orders to do so. In January 2020, the court ordered Ranke and her client to pay $4,886 in attorney fees for failing to cooperate with the opposing parties.

Brantley texted Ranke numerous times to inquire about the case but did not receive substantive answers. The workers sought summary judgment. Ranke submitted a brief in opposition and requested more time to support her position, which the trial court granted. But she did not file anything further.

The court granted summary judgment and awarded the workers $268,802 in damages. They then asked for attorney fees and court costs, to which Ranke did not respond, and the trial court granted an additional $38,523. Ranke did not inform Brantley that she and her business owed more than $307,000 to her former workers. Brantley only learned of it when she contacted another attorney.

Client Sues Lawyer for Malpractice
Brantley hired a new attorney to set aside the court’s judgment against her and file a malpractice case against Ranke. Ranke told the new attorney she would cooperate with him, but did not. Brantley sought a default judgment against Ranke from the trial court, and the judge hearing the case, having not heard a response from Ranke, notified the parties that he intended to rule on the motion.

Ranke then sent the judge an email falsely stating that she had responded and would confirm it with him. However, she did not respond to any actions against her in the malpractice case or attend a hearing on the matter. The judge awarded Brantley $307,000 plus 5% interest. Brantley received $200,000 through garnishment of Ranke’s bank account and received a final payment the day before Ranke’s December 2023 disciplinary hearing.

At her disciplinary hearing, Ranke disputed that she lied to the judge about filing a response. When asked about her failure to cooperate with Brantley’s new attorney regarding the malpractice case, she responded that she had “just put it off and buried it.”

The Board of Professional Conduct found Ranke committed several violations while representing Brantley, including knowingly making a false statement to the judge, failing to diligently comply with discovery requests from the opposing parties, and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Other Clients Impacted by Attorney’s Misconduct
The opinion detailed Ranke’s misconduct in the handling of three other matters.

She was appointed to represent Raphelle Winegarner in his appeal of his 33-year prison sentence for multiple felonies. Winegarner’s mother repeatedly texted Ranke about the filing of the appeal. Ranke told the mother she had sent her an email with the appeal that she had filed and that she should check her email spam folder. The mother contacted the court. She learned Ranke did not file an appeal, and the deadline had passed.

Ranke also accepted $1,300 from Joshmarie Caraballo to handle a custody matter and a passport issue. Ranke did not respond to calls or other communications from Caraballo. When Caraballo requested a refund and did not receive a response from Ranke, she filed a grievance against the attorney. Ranke repeatedly failed to respond to the disciplinary inquiries. She subsequently issued Caraballo a $1,100 refund and returned the remaining $200 during her disciplinary hearing.

In April 2020, Billie Levert-Hill paid Ranke $1,500 to handle her divorce. Ranke did not appear for the trial in the divorce proceedings and did not tell her client about the status of her case. She told Levert-Hill the trial had been “kicked” to mid-2022.

Levert-Hill learned her ex-husband and lawyer did appear at the trial, and the judge had entered a divorce decree. Levert-Hill did not learn that her divorce had been finalized until her ex-husband’s lawyer sent her a letter regarding a deed to property the couple owned. At her disciplinary hearing, Ranke agreed that Levert-Hill was a vulnerable client and had been left “high and dry.”

The board found Ranke committed numerous misconduct violations, including failing to act on a client matter with reasonable diligence.

Supreme Court Considered Sanction
The disciplinary counsel agreed with Ranke that she should be indefinitely suspended, but also acknowledged that disbarment may be necessary to protect the public. The board recommended that the Court disbar Ranke, citing several reasons, including her prior disciplinary offenses, displaying a pattern of misconduct, acting with a selfish and dishonest motive, and lack of cooperation with the disciplinary process.

Ranke objected to disbarment and cited three cases in which attorneys with similar patterns of misconduct received indefinite suspensions. The board pointed to three cases where attorneys were disbarred for acts similar to Ranke’s.

When considering the sanction in a disciplinary case, the Court considers aggravating circumstances that could increase the penalty and mitigating factors that could lead to a lesser sanction.

The Court noted the board did not find any mitigating factors but there were several aggravating factors, including her pattern of misconduct, history of offenses, and harm to her clients. Justice Fischer noted in the cases where attorneys were disbarred for committing similar misconduct, all lacked mitigating factors. The Court stated Ranke was given a second chance when she received an indefinite suspension, and yet continued to repeat the same type of client neglect.

“[I]f an attorney is indefinitely suspended, subsequently reinstated, then commits further serious misconduct, the appropriate sanction is disbarment,” the Court concluded.

Ranke was also ordered to pay Levert-Hill $1,500 in restitution and pay for the cost of the disciplinary proceedings.

Attorney’s Actions Warrant Indefinite Suspension, Opinion Maintained
In her opinion, Justice Stewart wrote that Ranke’s misconduct was more similar to attorneys who received an indefinite suspension and was “sufficiently different” than the attorneys who were disbarred. One of the disbarred attorneys was sanctioned five times for misconduct, another refused to acknowledge he neglected client matters, and another repeatedly refused to cooperate with disciplinary matters, she noted.

In contrast, Ranke was only sanctioned twice previously, acknowledged she neglected client matters, and participated in her disciplinary proceedings. The opinion noted the common theme among those who were indefinitely suspended was client neglect, and Ranke’s actions are consistent with attorneys who neglected clients and failed to fully cooperate in disciplinary proceedings.

Justice Stewart wrote that an indefinite suspension would not diminish the fact that Ranke’s misconduct touched “virtually every aspect of [her] practice” and “that her misconduct demonstrates a disturbing pattern of neglect” and an inclination to engage in dishonesty when questioned.

“But as precedent shows, an indefinite suspension can protect the public while relaying the seriousness of Ranke’s misconduct,” the opinion stated.

2024-0491. Disciplinary Counsel v. Ranke, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5491.

View oral argument video of this case.

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, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.