SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO FILED APR 20 2010 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING in discipline BEFORE the PRESIDING DISCIPLLINARY JUDGE 1560 Broadway, Suite 675. RECOMMENDATION: 2 Year Served Suspension and the Requirement that Respondent Pay the Restitution Ordered in the Texas Discipline Case.
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO FILED APR 20 2010 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING in discipline BEFORE the PRESIDING DISCIPLLINARY JUDGE 1560 Broadway, Suite 675. RECOMMENDATION: 2 Year Served Suspension and the Requirement that Respondent Pay the Restitution Ordered in the Texas Discipline Case.
Direitos autorais:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formatos disponíveis
Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO FILED APR 20 2010 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING in discipline BEFORE the PRESIDING DISCIPLLINARY JUDGE 1560 Broadway, Suite 675. RECOMMENDATION: 2 Year Served Suspension and the Requirement that Respondent Pay the Restitution Ordered in the Texas Discipline Case.
Direitos autorais:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formatos disponíveis
Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
STIPULATION, AGREEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT CONTAINING THE RESPONDENT'S CONDITIONAL ADMISSION OF MISCONDUCT
On this I. '1 ~ day of Aft>. I / , 2010, Nancy L. Cohen, Chief
Deputy Regulation Counsel and at orney for the complainant, and Steven Jay Rozan, the respondent; enter into the following stipulation, agreement, and affidavit containing the respondent's conditional admission of misconduct (11 stipulation") and submit the same to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge for his consideration.
RECOMMENDATION: 2 Year Served Suspension and the Requirement that Respondent Pay the Restitution Ordered in the Texas Discipline Case.
1. The respondent has taken and subscribed the oath of admission,
was admitted to the bar of this court on September 16, 1980, and is registered
,41
as an attorney upon the official records of this court, registration no. 10381. The respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of this court and the Presiding Disciplinary Judge in these proceedings.
2. The respondent enters into this stipulation freely and voluntarily.
No promises have been made concerning future consideration, punishment, or lenience in the above-referenced matter. It is the respondent's personal decision, and the respondent affirms there has been no coercion or other intimidating acts by any person or agency concerning this matter.
3. This matter has become public under the operation of C.R.C.P.
251.31(c) as amended.
4. The respondent is familiar with the rules of the Colorado Supreme
Court regarding the procedure for discipline of attorneys and with the rights provided by those rules. The respondent acknowledges the right to a full and complete evidentiary hearing on the above-referenced complaint. At any such hearing, the respondent would have the right to be represented by counsel, present evidence, call witnesses, and cross-examine the witnesses presented by the complainant. At any such formal hearing, the complainant would have the burden of proof and would be required to prove the charges contained in the complaint with clear and convincing evidence. Nonetheless, having full knowledge of the right to such a formal hearing, the respondent waives that right.
5. The respondent and the complainant specifically waive the right to
a hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.22(c)(1).
6. The respondent has read and studied the complaint denominated
as People v. Steven Jay Rozan, 10PDJ027 and is familiar with the allegations therein. A true and correct copy of the complaint is attached to this stipulation as Exhibit A. With respect to the allegations contained in the complaint, the respondent affirms under oath that the following facts and conclusions are true and correct:
a. On December 29, 2009, the Evidentiary Panel of the State Bar District No. 4 Grievance Committee of Texas ("Evidentiary Panel") entered its Judgment and Order ("the order") suspending the respondent from the practice of law for a period of five years, beginning January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2014. The order provides that the respondent shall be actively suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years beginning January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2011. The three year period of probated (stayed) suspension begins on January 1,
2
,-
2012 and ends on December 31, 2014. A copy of the Evidentiary Panel's Judgment and Order is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
b. The parties in the Texas case submitted an Agreed Judgment of
Partially Probated Suspension to the Evidentiary Panel.
c. The Evidentiary Panel imposed the discipline agreed to by the
parties.
d. The respondent did not notify the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("OARC"} that he had been suspended in Texas, as required by Rule 251.21(b}. OARC learned of the respondent's discipline from the State Bar of Texas.
e. Respondent also did not notify OARC of a separate one-year suspension that was entered on August 31, 2009. The effective date of that suspension was January 1,2010.
f. The procedures followed by the Evidentiary Panel comported with
the requirements of due process.
g. This Court's proceedings involving the respondent can
appropriately be based upon the proceedings held in Texas.
h. The respondent was suspended in Texas for violating the Texas ethical rules regarding his representation of 111 clients in criminal matters.
Each of the client matters is listed below:
1. On March 5, 2009, Amuir Clausell ("Clausell"} hired respondent to appeal his federal criminal conviction. Clausell paid respondent $15,000 for the representation. Respondent drafted and filed an extensive writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Clausell, which was denied by the court. Respondent then filed a notice of appeal but the court ruled it was late. Respondent failed to file a motion to reopen or take other corrective action.
ii. On May 25, 2004, Juana Garcia hired respondent to file for post-conviction relief on behalf of Miguel Botello. Respondent was paid $15,000 for the representation. Respondent filed the writ of habeas corpus, which was subsequently denied. Upon
I Ms. Cabezuela retained respondent for her two sons on two separate matters.
3
appeal, respondent failed to pay the docketing fee and the appeal was dismissed. The case was reinstated after respondent paid the docketing fee; but the case was later dismissed for want of prosecution.
iii. c. On May 1~ 2007, Domingo Campos e'Campos") hired respondent to file a motion to reduce his sentence in a federal criminal matter. Respondent was paid a retainer in the total amount of $10,000. Respondent failed to file the motion for reduction of sentence. By letter dated December 6, 2007, Campos terminated respondent's services, requested a billing statement, and requested a refund of any unearned fees. Respondent agreed to refund a portion of the fees, but failed to do so. Respondent has also failed to comply with Campos' request for an accounting.
iv. In March 2007, Gary Vaughn ("Vaughn") hired respondent to seek a reduction in his sentence in a federal criminal matter. Respondent was paid $11,000 for the representation. By letter dated December 17, 2007, Vaughn terminated respondent's services. Vaughn requested a refund of unearned fees and the return of his file. Respondent failed to comply with either request.
v. On June 9~ 2006, Terrance Veltman ("Veltman") hired respondent for representation in filing a §2255 in a federal case and a writ of habeas corpus in a state case. Both representations included appeals, if necessary. Veltman paid respondent a total amount of $15,000 for the representations. Respondent filed the §2255 motion, which the magistrate recommended be denied. The case was dismissed. Additionally, respondent failed to reasonably communicate with Veltman regarding the status of his cases. Respondent failed to respond to the grievance filed by Veltman.
vi, In November, 2005, Napoleon Randall ("Randall") hired respondent for representation in an appeal of his criminal conviction. Randall paid respondent $7,500 for the representation. Respondent timely filed the notice of appeal, but failed to file the brief and record excerpts, even after receiving an extension of time. During the course of the representation, Randall made numerous attempts to contact respondent to ascertain the status of his case; however,
4
respondent failed to communicate with Randall. Randall also made a written request to respondent for the return of his client file, as well as any unearned attorneys' fees. Respondent failed to comply with Randall's request for a fee refund.
Vll. In December 2005, Rosalinda Cabezuela ("Cabezuela") hired respondent to represent her sons, Hashim and Steven Thomas, on their respective criminal appeals. Cabezuela and her sons terminated respondent's services. Respondent failed to file a response to the grievance filed by Cabezuela.
viii. On April 16, 2006, respondent was hired by Rebecca Dunn ("Dunn") to represent her brother, Philip Cooper ("Cooper") in the filing of a writ of habeas corpus. Responden t was paid $7,500 for the representation. Respondent failed to me the writ or take any action on Cooper's behalf. In response to a letter from Dunn, respondent explained that recently decided case law would be helpful and that he would file the writ within the next 20 days. Respondent failed to do so.
ix. On March 23, 2007, Juan Licea-Cedillo ("Licea-Cedillo") hired respondent to file a §2255 writ of habeas corpus. Licea-Cedillo paid respondent $10,000 for the representation. Respondent failed to timely me the writ and as a result, the case was dismissed.
x. In January 2005, Taj Smith ("Smith") hired respondent for representation in his federal criminal trial. After he was convicted, Smith hired another attorney for post-judgment representation. Smith made numerous requests for his client file, but respondent has been unable to locate it.
i. The respondent stipulated in the Texas disciplinary matter that he neglected client matters; failed to communicate with his clients or the client's family members; failed to return unearned fees and failed to return files upon termination of his services; and failed to timely furnish to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
j. Respondent was suspended in Texas for a period of 5 years, 2 years served and 3 years stayed, with the requirement of restitution in the amount of $40,120.00 to be paid during the term of the served suspension, subject to 3 years probation. The basis for the discipline
5
was for violating the following: Rule 1.01(b)(1) (neglect), Rille 1.03(aHfailing to communicate), Rule 1.15(d)(failing to return unearned retainers and client files upon termination) and Rule S.4(a){S) (failing to timely furnish to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office or a District Grievance Committee a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure).
k. Under C.R.C.P. 251.21(a) a final adjudication in Texas of misconduct constituting grounds for discipline of an attorney, shall for purposes of these disciplinary proceedings, conclusively establish such misconduct.
1. The respondent's conduct in his representation of his 11 clients as described in Exhibit B, was misconduct that, according to precedent in Colorado, results in violations of Colo. RPC 1.3 (neglect), 1.4 (failure to communicate), 1.16(d)(failing to return unearned fees and client files upon termination of the representation) and 3.4(c) (knowing violation of the tribunal). The respondent's misconduct in Texas warrants a two-year served suspension in Colorado.
m. Through the respondent's conduct described in the Evidentiary Panel's Order attached as Exhibit B, respondent has engaged in conduct constituting grounds for the imposition of discipline pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5 and 251.21(a).
n. Respondent failed to notify OARC within 10 days of January 1, 2010, the effective date of the respondent's suspension of his license in Texas.
o. As a result of his failure to so notify OARe, respondent violated Colo. RPC 3.4(c) that provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rilles of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists. Respondent made no open refusal based on assertion that no valid obligation exists.
7. Reciprocal discipline should be imposed against respondent
pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.21.
8. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.32, the respondent agrees to pay costs in
the amount of $91.00 (a copy of the statement of costs is attached hereto as Exhibit C) incurred in conjunction with this matter within thirty (30) days after acceptance of the stipulation by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, made payable to Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Offices. The
6
respondent agrees that statutory interest shall accrue from the date that the Presiding Disciplinary Judge accepts this stipulation. Should the respondent fail to make payment of the aforementioned costs and interest within (30) days, the respondent specifically agrees to be responsible for all additional costs and expenses, such as reasonable attorney fees and costs of collection incurred by the complainant in collecting the above stated amount. The complainant may amend the amount of the judgment for the additional costs and expenses by providing a motion and bill of costs to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, which identifies this paragraph of the stipulation and the respondent's default on the payment.
9. This stipulation is premised and conditioned upon acceptance of
the same by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. If for any reason the stipulation is not accepted without changes or modification, then the admissions, confessions, and stipulations made by the respondent will be of no effect. Either party will have the opportunity to accept or reject any modification. If either party rejects the modification, then the parties shall be entitled to a full evidentiary hearing; and no confession, stipulation, or other statement made by the respondent in conjunction with this offer to accept discipline of two-years served suspension may be subsequently used. If the stipulation is rejected, then the matter will be heard and considered pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.18.
10. There is no complaining witness.
PRIOR DISCIPLINE
11. None in Colorado.
ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINE
12. Pursuant to American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 1991 and Supp. 1992 ("ABA Standards"), §3.0, the Court should consider the following factors generally:
(a) The duty violated: Under C.R.C.P. 251.21(d), this court shall issue a decision imposing the same discipline as was imposed by the State Bar of Texas unless it is determined that:
i. The procedure followed in Texas did not comport with the requirements of due process of law;
ii. The proof upon which the Evidentiary Panel based its determination of misconduct is so infirm that this court cannot, consistent with its duty, accept as final the determination of Texas;
7
iii. The imposition by this court of the same discipline as was imposed by Texas would result in grave injustice; or
iv. The misconduct warrants that a substantially different form of discipline be imposed.
The parties stipulate that none of the four circumstances exist in this case, and that a two year served suspension is an appropriate discipline under these circumstances.
b. The lawyer's mental state: knowing.
c. The actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct: the clients were injured by the respondent's failure to complete their cases and his failure to return funds he had not earned.
d. The existence of aggravating or mitigating factors: Factors in aggravation which are present include: prior disciplinary offenses in Texas; dishonest or selfish motive; multiple offenses; vulnerability of the victims; substantial experience in the practice of law, ABA Standards §9.22(a),(b),(d),(h),(k). Factors in mitigation include: none.
8
RECOMMENDATION FOR AND CONSENT TO DISCIPLINE
Based on the foregoing, the parties hereto recommend that a two-year served suspension with the requirement of restitution be paid to the clients listed in the Evidentiary Panel's order before the respondent applies for reinstatement, be imposed upon the respondent. The respondent consents to the imposition of discipline of a two-year served suspension. The parties request that the Presiding Disciplinary Judge order that the effective date of such discipline be immediate since the respondent is already suspended from the practice of law by the State Bar of Texas and is not allowed to practice law under the Evidentiary Panel's order.
GINA RODRIGUEZ Nota/y Public, State Of Texas My Commission Expires Sept.mber 13, 2011
9
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE ~FILED
BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
1560 Broadway, Suite 675 MAR if i! 2010
Denver, Colorado 80202 ~RESIDrl'lGmSCfl>L1NrdGr JtJDGi;
Complainant: 5VP.REME COURT OF COLORIIDO
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
.COURT USE ONLY ..
Respondent:
STEVEN JAY ROZAN Case Number:
Nancy L. Cohen, # 11846 10PDJ027
Chief Deputy Regulation Counsel
John S. Gleason, #15011
Regulation Counsel
Attorneys for Complainant
1560 Broadway, Suite 1800
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 866-6400 x 6577
Fax No.: (303) 893-5302
COMPLAINT THIS COMPLAINT is filed pursuant to the authority of C.R.C.P. 251.21 and it is alleged as follows:
Jurisdiction
1. The respondent has taken and subscribed the oath of admission,
was admitted to the bar of this court on September 16, 1980, and is registered upon the official records of this court, registration number 10381. He is subject to the jurisdiction of this court in these disciplinary proceedings. The respondent's registered business address is 2777 Allen Parkway, 10th Floor, Houston, Texas 77019-2165.
General AllegatioDs
2. On December 29, 2009, the Evidentiary Panel of the State Bar
District No.4 Grievance Committee of Texas ("Evidentiaxy Panel"), entered its Judgment and Order ("the order") suspending the respondent from the practice of law for a period of five years, beginning January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2014. The order provides that the respondent shall be
EXHIBIT
A
actively suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years beginning January 1, 2010 and ending December 31-, 2011. The three year period of probated (stayed) suspension begins on January 1, 2012 and ends on December 31, 2014. A copy of the Evidentiary Panel's Judgment and Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. The parties in the Texas case submitted an Agreed Judgment of
Partially Probated Suspension to the Evidentiary Panel.
4. The Evidentiary Panel imposed the discipline agreed to by the
parties.
5. The respondent did not notify the Colorado Office of Attorney
Regulation Counsel ("OARe") that he had been suspended in Texas, as required by Rule 251.21(b). OARe learned of the respondent's discipline from the State Bar of Texas.
6. Respondent also did not notify OARe of a separate one-year
suspension that was entered on August 31, 2009. The effective date of that suspension was January 1,2010.
7. The procedures followed by the Evidentiary Panel comported with
the requirements of due process.
8. This Court's proceedings involving the respondent can
appropriately be based upon the proceedings held in Texas.
CLAIM I
[Reciprocal Discipline - C.R.C.P. 2S1.21(d)]
9. Paragraphs 1 through 8 are incorporated herein as if fully set
forth.
10. C.R.C.P. 2S1.21(d) provides: "Upon receiving notice that an attorney subject to these Rules has been publicly disciplined in another jurisdiction, the Regulation Counsel shall obtain the disciplinary order and prepare and me a complaint against the attorney as provided in C.R.C.P. 251.14."
11. The respondent was suspended in Texas for violating the Texas ethical rules regarding his representation of 111 clients in criminal matters.
t Ms. Cabezuela retained respondent for her two sons on two separate matters.
2
Each of the client matters is listed below:
a. On March 5, 2009, Amuir Clausell ("Clausell") hired respondent to appeal his federal criminal conviction. Clausell paid respondent $15,000 for the representation. Respondent drafted and filed an extensive writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Clausell, which was denied by the court. Respondent then rued a notice of appeal but the court ruled it was late. Respondent failed to me a motion to reopen or take other corrective action.
b. On May 25, 2004, Juana Garcia hired respondent to file for post-conviction relief on behalf of Miguel Botello. Respondent was paid $15,000 for the representation. Respondent rued the writ of habeas corpus, which was subsequently denied. Upon appeal, respondent failed to pay the docketing fee and the appeal was dismissed. The case was reinstated after respondent paid the docketing fee; but the case was later dismissed for want of prosecution.
c. On May 1, 2007, Domingo Campos ("Campos") hired respondent to file a motion to reduce his sentence in a federal criminal matter. Respondent was paid a retainer in the total amount of $10,000. Respondent failed to file the motion for reduction of sentence. By letter dated December 6, 2007, Campos terminated respondent's services, requested a billing statement, and requested a refund of any unearned fees. Respondent agreed to refund a portion of the fees, but failed to do so. Respondent has also failed to comply with Campos' request for an accounting.
d. In March 2007, Gary Vaughn ("Vaughn") hired respondent to seek a reduction in his sentence in a federal criminal matter. Respondent was paid $11,000 for the representation. By letter dated December 17, 2007, Vaughn terminated respondent's services. Vaughn requested a refund of unearned fees and the return of his file. Respondent failed to comply with either request.
e. On June 9, 2006, Terrance Veltman ("Veltman") hired respondent for representation in filing a §2255 in a federal case and a writ of habeas corpus in a state case. Both representations included appeals, if necessary, Veltman paid respondent a total amount of $15,000 for the representations. Respondent filed the §2255 motion, which the magistrate recommended be denied. The case was dismissed. Additionally, respondent failed to reasonably communicate with Veltman regarding the status of his cases. Respondent failed to respond to the grievance filed by Veltman.
3
f. In November, 2005, Napoleon Randall ("Randall") hired respondent for representation in an appeal of his criminal conviction. Randall paid respondent $7,500 for the representation. Respondent timely filed the notice of appeal, but failed to file the brief and record excerpts, even after receiving an extension of time. During the course of the representation, Randall made numerous attempts to contact respondent to ascertain the status of his case; however, respondent failed to communicate with Randall. Randall also made a written request to respondent for the return of his client file, as well as any unearned attorneys' fees. Respondent failed to comply with Randall's request for a fee refund.
g. In December 2005, Rosalinda Cabezuela ("Cabezuela") hired respondent to represent her sons, Hashim and Steven Thomas, on their respective criminal appeals. Cabezuela and her sons terminated respondent's services. Respondent failed to file a response to the grievance filed by Cabezuela.
h. On April 16, 2006, respondent was hired by Rebecca Dunn ("Dunn") to represent her brother, Philip Cooper ("Coopec") in the filing of a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent was paid $7,500 for the representation. Respondent failed to file the writ or take any' action on Cooper's behalf. In response to a letter from Dunn, respondent explained that recently decided case law would be helpful and that he would file the writ within the next 20 days. Respondent failed to do so.
i. On March 23, 2007, Juan Licea-Cedillo ("Licea-Cedillo") hired respondent to file a §2255 writ of habeas corpus. Licea-Cedillo paid respondent $10,000 for the representation. Respondent failed to timely file the writ and as a result, the case was dismissed.
j. In January 2005, Taj Smith ("Smith") hired respondent for representation in his federal criminal tria1. After he was convicted, Smith hired another attorney for post-judgment representation. Smith made numerous requests for his client me, but respondent has been unable to locate it.
12. The respondent stipulated in the Texas disciplinary matter that he
neglected client matters; failed to communicate with his clients or the client's family members; failed to return unearned fees and failed to return files upon termination of his services; and failed to timely furnish to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
4
13. Respondent was suspended in Texas for a period of 5 years, 2 years served and 3 years stayed, subject to 3 years probation for violating the following: Rule 1.01(b)(1) (neglect), Rule 1.03(a)(failing to communicate), Rule 1. 15(d)(failing to return unearned retainers and client files upon termination) and Rule 8'A(a)(8) (failing to timely furnish to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office or a District Grievance Committee a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure).
14. Under C.R.C.P. 2S1.2 1 (a) a final adjudication in Texas of misconduct constituting grounds for discipline of an attorney, shall for purposes of these disciplinary proceedings, conclusively establish such misconduct.
15. The respondent's conduct in his representation of his 11 clients as described in Exhibit A, was misconduct that, according to precedent in Colorado, results in violations of Colo. RPC 1.3 (neglect), 1.4 (failure to communicate), 1.16(d)(failing to return unearned fees and client files upon termination of the representation) and 3.4(e) (knowing violation of the tribunal). The respondent's misconduct in Texas warrants at least a two-year served suspension in Colorado.
16. Through the respondent's conduct described in the Evidentiary Panel's Order attached as Exhibit A, respondent has engaged in conduct constituting grounds for the imposition of discipline pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5 and 251.21(a).
17. Reciprocal discipline should be imposed against respondent pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.21.
WHEREFORE, the complainant prays at the conclusion hereof.
CLAIM II
[A Lawyer Shall Not Knowingly Disobey an Obligation Under the Rules of a Tribunal - Colo. RPC 3.4(c)1
18. Paragraphs 1 through 17 are incorporated herein as if fully set
forth.
19. C.R.C.P. 2S1.21(b) provides that any attorney subject to these Rules against whom any form of public discipline has been imposed by the authorities of another jurisdiction ... shall notify the Regulation Counsel of such action in writing within 10 days thereof.
5
20. Respondent failed to notify Regulation Counsel within 10 days of January 1, 2010, the effective date of the respondent's suspension of his license in Texas.
21. As a result of his failure to so notify Regulation Counsel, respondent violated Colo. RPC 3.4(e) which provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists. Respondent made no open refusal based on assertion that no valid obligation exists.
22. By such conduct, respondent violated Colo. RPC 3.4(c).
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the respondent be found guilty of violations of various rules of conduct which establish grounds for discipline as provided in C.R.C.P. 251.5 and 251.21, and the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct and that he be appropriately disciplined and assessed the costs of these proceedings.
~
Dated this r day of March, 2010.
ancy L. ohen, #11846
Chief Dep ty Regulation Counsel John S. Gleason, #15011 Regulation Counsel
Attorneys for Complainant
6
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that one copy of the foregoi~ Complaint was placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this r day of March, 2010, and addressed to:
Steven Jay Rozan
2777 Allen Parkway, 10th Floor . . 'J_.
Houston, TX 77019 ~£ t~
7
BUSINESS RECORDS AFFIDAVIT OF J.G. MOLLESTON
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared J.G. MOLLESTON who, being by me duly sworn, deposed as follows:
My name is J.G. MOLLESTON, I am of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts herein stated.
I am employed as Houston Regional Counsel for the STATE BAR OF TEXAS. I am the custodian of records of the Houston Regional Office of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS. Attached hereto are twenty-five (25) pages of records kept by the STATE BAR OF TEXAS concerning disciplinary actions against the law license of STEVEN JAY ROZAN, State Bar No. 17357000.
These said twenty-five (25) pages of records are kept by the STATE BAR OF TEXAS in the regular course of business, and it was the regular course of business of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS for an employee or representative of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS, with knowledge of the act, event, condition, or opinion recorded to make the record or to transmit information thereof to be included in such record; and the record was made at or near the time or reasonably soon thereafter. The records attached hereto are the original or exact duplicates of the original.
OL TON
Hous n Regional Counsel Jefferson, Suite 1000 Houston. Texas 77002
Phone: (713) 758-8200
Fax: (713) 758-8292
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before ·me on the60 ~y of February, 2010.
~~~
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
BAR OF TEXAS
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
SHAWN MARIE LESLIE
, MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEBRUARY8,201D
Business Records Affidavit of J. G. MollestonlSteven Jay Rozan g:\generallcdc_closedcases\Closed_09-10\rozan.s_sbs\business_TeCords_aff_jgm.doc
·,
,BEFORE THE EVIDENTIARY PANEL OF THE STATE BAR DISTRICf NO. 4 GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
On this day; came to be heard the above styled and numbered cause. Petitioner and Respondent, Steven Jay Rozan, Texas Bar Number 17357000, announce that ,an agreement has
been reached on all matters including the imposition of a Partially Probated Suspension.
Jurisdiction and Venue
-, '
TheBvidentiery Panel 4A having been duly appointed to hear this complaint by the chair
of the Grievance Committee for State Bar of Texas District 4, finds that it has jurisdiction over
, ,
the parties and the subject matter oftbis action, and that venue is proper .
. Professional Misconduct
The Evidentiary Panel, having considered the pleadings) admissions, stipulations and
agreements of the parties, finds Respondent has committed Professional Misconduct as defined
by Rule 1.06(V) of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure,
}findings of Fact
Petitioner and Respondent, agree to -the following findings of fact. Accordingly, the Evidentiary Panel :finds:
CFLD v. Steven Jay Rozan
Agreed Partially Probated Suspension
1. Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas and is a member of the State Bar of Texas.
2. Respondent resides in and maintains his principal place of practice in Harris County, Texas.
3. On March 28, 2005, Amuir Clausell hired Respondent to appeal bis federal criminal conviction. Clausell paid Respondent $15,000,00 for tho representation. Respondent drafted and filed an extensive writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Clausell, which was denied by the Court. Respondent then filed a notice of appeal but the Court ruled it was late. Respondent failed to file a motion to reopen or take other corrective action.
4. On May 2S, 2004, Juana Garcia hired Respondent to file for post-conviction relief on behalf of Miguel Botello. Respondent was paid 515,000.00 for the representation. Respondent flIed the writ of habeas: corpus, which was subsequently denied. Upon appeal. Respondent failed to pay the docketing foe and the appeal was dismissed. The case was reinstated after Respondent paid the docketing fee; but the case was later dismissed 'for want of prosecution.
5. On May 1, 2007, Domingo Campos hired Respondent to file a motion to reduce his sentence in a federal criminal matter. Respondent was paid a retainer in the total amount of $1 0,000.00. Respondent failed to file the motion for reduction of sentence. By letter dated December 6, 2007, Campos terminated Respondent's services, requested a billing statement, and requested a refund of any uneamed fees. Respondent agreed to refund a portion of the fees, but failed to do so. Respondent has also failed to comply with Campos' request for an accounting.
6. In March 2007. Gary Vaughn hired Respondent to seek a reduction in his sentence in a. federal criminal. matter. Respondent was paid $11,000.00 for the representation. By letter dated December 17. 2007. Vaughn terminated Respondent's services. Vaughn requested a refund of unearned fees and the return of his file. Respondent
failed to comply with either request .
7. On June 9, 2006, Terrance Vel1lnan hired Respondent for representation in filing a §2255 in a federal case and a writ of habeas corpus in a state case. Both representations included appeals, if necessary. Veltman. paid Respondent a total
. amount of $15,000.00 for the representations. Respondent filed the §22S5 motion, which the magistrate recommended be denied, The case was dismissed. Additionally, Respondent failed to reasonably communicate with Veltman regarding the status of his cases. Respondent failed to respond to the grievance filed by Veltman.
8. In. November 2005, Napole~n Randall hired Respondent for representation in an appeal of his criminal conviction. Randall paid Respondent $7,500.00 for the representation. Respondent timely filed the notice of appeal, but failed to file the brief and record excerpts, even after receiving an extension of time. During the course C!f the representation, Randall made numerous attempts to contact Respondent to ascertaln the status of his. case; however, Respondent failed to communicate with Randall. Randall also made a written request to Respondent for the return of his client file; as: well as any uneamed attorneys' fees. Respondent failed to comply with
Randall's request for a fee refund. .
9. In December 200St Rosalinda Cabezuela hired Respondent to represent her SODS, Hashim and Steven Thomas, on their respective criminal appeals, Cabezuela and her
Page2of9
.'
,
CFLD v. Steven Jay Rozan AgreedPartially Probated Suspension
sons terminated Respondent's servicee, Respondent failed to file a response to tho
grievance filed by Cabezuela. .
10. On April 16, 2006, Respondent was hired by Rebecca Dunn to represent her brother, Philip Cooper in the filing a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent was paid $7,500.00 . for the representation. Respondent failed to file the writ or take any action on Cooper's behalf. In response to a letter from Dunn, Respondent explained that recently decided case law would be helpful and that he would file the writ within the next 30 days, Respondent failed to do so.
11. On March 23, 2007, Juan Licea-Cedillo hired Respondent to file a §22SS writ of habeas COJ:P118. Licea-Cedillo paid Respondent $10,000.00 for the representation. Respondent failed to timely file the writ arid as a result, the case was dismissed.
12. In January 200', Taj ''Smith hired Respondent for representation in his federal criminal trial. After he was convicted, Smith hired another attorney for postjudgment representation. Smith made numerous requests for his client file, but
Respondent has been unable to locate it. '
13. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas has incurred reasonable attorneys' fees and direct expenses associated with this Disciplinary Proceeding in the amount of$5,84O.00.
14. Respondent o~es restitution in the amount of$40,120.00 payable to:
CaseNo ' CompJainant ' Restitution
HOO80827386* A Clausell s 5,000.00
HOOS0622484* I. Garcia (Botello) s 3,500.00
HOQ40826442* D. Campos $ 61700.00
H0040826545* G. Vaughn $7,370.00
HOO40928605 T. Veltman, $ 3,500.00
HOOI0928146 N. Randall $ 5,025.00
HOO60929107 R Cabezuela NJA
HOOS0928936 R.Dunn $ 5,025.00
(Cooper)
,HOO90929S34 1. Licea-Cedillo $ 4JOOO.OO
HOO909295S0 T. Smith NfA
TOTAL s 40,120.00 Page 3 of9
CFLD v. Steven Jay Rozan.
Agreed P~tia1ly Probated Susp,ension
Conclusions of Law
Petitioner and Respondent agree that) 'based on the foregoing findings of fact, the
following Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct have been violated. Accordingly, the Evidentiary Panel concludes the following, rules of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of
Professional Conduct have been violated: Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1. 15(d), and 8.04(a)(8),
§anction
It is AGREED and ORDERED that the sanction of a Partially Probated Suspension sha1l
be imposed against Respondent in accordance with the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years, beginning January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2014. Respondent shall be actively suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years beginning January 1, 2010 and ending December 31,2011. The three (3) year period. of probated suspension shall begin on January 1. 2012 and shall end on
December 31, 2014.
'terms of Active Suspension
It is further ORDERED that during the term of active suspension ordered herein, or that
may be imposed upon Respondent by the Board of Disciplinary Appeals as a result of a
probation revocation proceeding, Respondent shall be prohibited from practicing law in Texas;' holding himself out as an attorney at law; performing any legal services for others; accepting any
fee directly or indirectly for legal services; appearing as counsel or in any representati.ve capacity
in any proceeding in any Texas or Federal court or before any administrative body; or holding
himself out to others or using his name, in any manner, in conjunction with the words "attorney
at law," "attorney," "counselor at law," or "lawyer,"
Page 4 of9
eFLD v. Steven Jay Rozan
Agreed Partially Probated Suspension
It is further ORDERED that, on or before January It 2010. Respondent Shall notify each
. of-Respondent's current clients in writing of this suspension.
In addition to such notification, it is further ORDERED Respondent shall return any files,
'. .
papers, unearned monies and other property belonging to current clients in Respondent's
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall file with the State Bar of Texas. State, P.O.
Box 12487, Austin, Texas 78711-2487 (1414 Colorado Street, Suite 200, Austin Texas 78701). on or before February 1, 2010, an affidavit stating all current clients have been notified of
Respondent's suspension and that all files. papers, monies and other property belonging to all
current clients have been returned as ordered herein.
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall, on or before January I, 2010, notify in writing
each and every justice: of the peace, judge, magistrate, administrative judge or officer and chief justice of each and every court or tribunal in which Respondent has any matter pending of the
. .
terms of this judgment, the style and cause number of the pending matter(s), and the name •.
address and telephone number of the client(s) Respondent is representing.
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall file with the State Bar of Texas. P.O. Box
12487~ Austin, Texas 78711-2487 (l414 Colorado Street) Suite 200, Austin Texas 78701), on or
before February I, 20101 an. affidavit stating Respondent has notified in writing each and every justice of the peace, judge, magistrate. and chief justice of each and every court in which
Respondent.has any matter pending of'the terms of this judgment, the style and cause number of
the pending matter(s), and the name, address and telephone number of the client(s) Respondent is
representing in Court.
PageS of9
CFLD v. Steven Jay Rozan
Agreed P~/ially Probated Suspension
It is further ORDERED that, on or before January IS, 2010, Respondent shall surrender
his . law license and permanent State Bar Card to the State Bar of Texas, Chief Disciplinary . Counsel, P.o. Box 12487~ Austin, Texas 78711-2487 (1414 Colorado Street, Suite 200, Austin
Texas 78701), to beforwarded to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Terms of PrObation
It is further ORDERED that during all periods of suspension, Respondent shall be under
the following terms and conditions:
1. Respondent shall not violate any term. of this judgment.
2. Respondent shall not engage in professional misconduct as defined by Rule 1.06(V) of the Texas. Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
3. Respondent shall not violate any state or federal criminal ~tatutes.
4. . Respondent shall keep State Bar of Texas membership department notified of current . mailing) residence and business addresses and telephone numbers.
5. Respondent shall comply with Minimum Continuing Legal Education requirements,
6. Respondent shall comply with Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) requirements.
7. Respondent shall prom.ptly respond to any request for information from the Chief n·isciplinary Counsel in connection with any investigation of any allegations of professional misconduct.
8; Respondent shall pay all reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and direct expenses to the State Bar of Texas in the. amount of $5,840,00 The payment shall be due and paYable on or before June 30, 2014 and shall be made by certified or cashier's check or money order. Respondent shall forward the funds, made pa.yable to the State Bar of Texas, P.O. Box 12487~ Austin; Texas 78711-2487 (1414 Colorado Street, Suite
200~ Austin Texas 78701). .
9. Respondent shall pay restitution in the amount of $40,120.00, to be paid by monthly installments in the amount of $1,671.67 beginning January 31, 2010 and 'ending December 31, 2011, by certified or cashier's check or money order, made payable to the State Bar of Texas; and delivered to the State Bar of Texas, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, Texas 78711-2487 (1414 Colorado Street, Suite 200. Austin Texas 78701).
Probation Revoeation
It is further ORDERED that) if Respondent violates any tenn of this judgment, the Board
of Disciplinary Appeals (HBODA") shall enter an order revoking the probation and imposing the
active suspension of Respondent from the practice of law to commence on the date of revocation.
Page6of9
,~
CFLD v. Steven Jay Rozan
Agreed Partially Probated Suspension
Upon detennination that Respondent has violated any term of this judgment, the Chief
Disciplinary Counsel may, in addition to all other remedies available, file a motion to revoke
probation with BODA and serve a photocopy of the motion on Respondent pursuant to
Tex.R.Civ.P.21a.
BODA shall conduct an evidentiary hearing. Ai the hearing, BODA shall determine by a
preponderance of the evidence whether Respondent has violated any term of this Judgment If BODA fmds grounds for revocation, BODA shall enter an order revoking probation and placing Respondent on active suspension from the date of such revocation order. Respondent shall not
be given credit for any term ofprob~tion served prior to revocation.
It is further ORDERED that any conduct on the part of Respondent which serves as the
basis for a motion to revoke probation may also b~ brought as independent grounds for discipline as allowed under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and Texas Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure.
Restitution. Attorney's Fees and Expenses
It is furthe» ORDERED Respondent shall pay restitution on or before December 31,
2011. to be paid by monthly installments in the amount ofSl,671.67 beginning January 31,2010
and ending December 31, 2011, by certified or cashier's check or money order, made payable to
the State Bar of Texas; and delivered to the State Bar of Texas, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, Texas
78711-2487 (1414 Colorado Street. Suite 200, Austin Texas 78701) for distribution to the
Complainants entitled to restitution.
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall pay all reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and direct expenses to the State Bar of Texas in the amount of in the amount of $5,840.00. 'The
payment shall be due and payable on or before June 30, 2014 and shall be made by certified or
Page7of9
CFLD v. Steven-Jay Rozan
Agreed Partially Probated Suspension
cashier's check or money order. Respondent shall forward the funds, made payable to the State
Bar of Texas, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, Texas 78711-2487 (1414 Colorado Street, Suite 200,
. .
Austin Texas 78701).
It is further ORDERED that all amounts ordered herein are due to the misconduct of
Respondent, are assessed as a part of the sanction in accordance with Rule 1.06(y) of the Texas
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Any amount not paid shall accrue interest at the maximum legal rate per annum until paid and the State Bar of Texas shall have all writs· and other post-
judgment remedies against Respondent in order.to collect all unpaid amounts.
·Publication
This. suspension shall be made a matter of record and appropriately published in
accordance with the Texas. Rules ofDiscip~ Procedure . . Other Relief
All requested relief not expressly granted herein is expressly DENIED.
SIGNED this ~ay of, ~ter- , 20~.
EVIDENTIARY PANEL' DISTRICT NO. 4A . STATE BAR OF TEXAS
fkj?p,~
DAVID HODGE
District 4A Presiding Member
Page 8 of9 .
cno v, SNvtn Jay Rolan Ap.dP/ll1ltJly Probaw $uspnuion
AGIlIJ:[) MTO IQIIlFOI!MMo MSWQ:
,·ntd~ .. ~ --.
StcW:n Jay Rozan ~ ~ ShJn.non Breaux S.ucoda
State Bar No. 17357000 Assistant Disciplinary Counsel
llespoDdart State Bar No. 24002896 Cou_l for Pttitloaer
State Bar No. 12137400 COllllC! for Rapolldeat
.. '
BEFORE THE EVIDENTIARY PANEL OF THE STATE BAR DISTRICT NO. 4A GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, § S0020819730 [ANTONIO SANCHEZ] §
Petitioner, §
§
v, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS §
STEVEN JAY ROZAN, §
§
Respondent. §
JUDGMENT OF ACTIVE SUSPENSION
Parties and Appearance
On August 20, 2009, came to be heard the above-styled and numbered cause. Petitioner, the
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, appeared by and through its attorney of record,
Shannon Breaux Sauceda, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and announced ready. Respondent,
STEVEN JAY ROZAN (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent"), Texas Bar Number 17357000,
appeared in person and announced ready.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The Evidentiary Panel 4A having been duly appointed to hear this complaint by the chair of
the Grievance Committee for STATE BAR OF TEXAS District 4, finds that it has jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter of this action and that venue is proper.
Professional Misconduct
The Evidentiary Panel, having considered all ofthe pleadings, evidence, stipulations, and
argument, finds Respondent has committed Professional Misconduct as defined by Rule 1.06(V) of
THE TExAs RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.
JUDGMENT OF ACTIVE SUSPENSION Page 1 of6
Findings of Fact
The Evidentiary Panel, having considered the pleadings, evidence and argument of counsel,
makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas and is a member of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS.
2. Respondent resides in and maintains his principal place of practice in Harris County, Texas.
3. On April 20, 2006, Antonio Sanchez (Sanchez) hired Respondent to defend him in an asset forfeiture case styled United States of America v. Waxwing Circle P. et ai, Civil No. 5:06-CV-00124-0LG, In the United StatesDistrict Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division.
4. Sanchez paid Respondent Seven Thousand Five Hundred and No/IOO Dollars ($7,500.00) for the representation.
5. During the course ofthe representation, Respondent failed to communicate with Sanchez about the status of the case and failed to respond to reasonable requests for information.
6. After filing a verified claim on behalf of Sanchez, Respondent failed to take any further action and in effect. abandoned the representation. Respondent did not withdraw from the case.
7. A defaultjudgrnent was entered against Sanchez on December 19,2007.
8. Respondent failed to notify Sanchez of said default judgment.
9. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS has incurred reasonable attorneys' fees associated with this Disciplinary Proceeding in the amount of One Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-Five and No/1 00 Dollars ($1,925.00).
10. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS has incurred reasonable direct expenses associated with this Disciplinary Proceeding in the amount of Eight Hundred Thirty-Six and 70/100 Dollars ($836.70).
11. Respondent owes restitution in the amount of Two Thousand Five Hundred and Noll 00 Dollars ($2,500.00) payable to Antonio Sanchez.
JUDGMENT OF ACTIVE SUSPENSION Page 2 of6
Conclusions of Law
The Evidentiary Panel concludes that, based on foregoing findings of fact, the following
TEXAS DISCIPLlNARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT have been violated: Rules 1.01 (b )(1) [in
representing a client, a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer]; 1.03(a) [a
lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with
reasonable requests for information]; 1.1S(a)(1) [a lawyer shall decline to represent a client or, where
representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if the
representation will result in violation of Rule 3.08, other applicable rules of professional conduct or
other law]; and 1.1S(d) [upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client,
allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client
is entitled and refunding any advance payments of fee that has not been earned].
Sanction
The Evidentiary Panel, having found that Respondent has committed professional
misconduct, heard and considered additional evidence regarding the appropriate sanction to be
imposed against Respondent. After hearing all evidence and argument and after having considered
the factors in Rule 2.18 of the TEXAS RULE OF DlSCIPLINARY PROCEDURE, the Evidentiary Panel
finds said findings and conclusions support a Judgment of Active Suspension.
Accordingly. it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Respondent shall be
actively suspended from the practice oflaw for a period of twelve (12) months beginning September
21,2009, and ending September 20,2010.
JUDGMENT OF ACTIVE SUSPENSION Page 3 of6
Terms of Active Suspension
It is further ORDERED that during the term of active suspension ordered herein, Respondent
shall be prohibited from practicing law in Texas; holding himself out as an attorney at law;
performing any legal services for others; accepting any fee directly or indirectly for legal services;
appearing as counselor in any representative capacity in any proceeding in any Texas or Federal
court or before a~y administrative body; or holding himself out to others or using his name, in any
maimer, in conjunction with the words "attorney at law," "attorney," "counselor at law," or "lawyer."
It is further ORDERED that, on or before September 21, 2009, Respondent shall notify each
of Respondent's current clients in writing of this suspension.
In addition to such notification, it is further ORDERED Respondent shall return any files,
papers, unearned monies and other property belonging to current clients in Respondent's possession
to the respective clients or to another attorney at the client's request.
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall file with the STATE BAR OF TEXAS, Chief
'It is further ORDERED that all amounts ordered herein are due to the misconduct of
Respondent, are assessed as a part of the sanction in accordance with Rule 1.06(y) of the TEXAS
RULES OF DISCIPLlNARY PROCEDURE, Any amount not paid shall accrue interest at the maximum
legal rate per amlUm until paid and the STATE BAR OF TEXAS shall have all writs and other post-
judgment remedies against Respondent in order to collect all unpaid amounts.
Publication
This suspension shan be made a matter of record and appropriately published in accordance
with the TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.
Other Relief
AU requested relief not expressly granted herein is expressly DENIED.
SIGNED this z.g1t. day of Auptc$f ,2009.
EVIDENTIARY PANEL DISTRICT NO. 4A STATE BAR OF TEXAS
y~.~
DA VIJ;) HOpGES
District 4A Presiding Member
JUDGMENT OF ACTIVE SUSPENSION Page 6 of6
.. ~ .
, ,
BEFORE THE EVIDENTIARY PANEL OF THE STATE BAR DISTRICT NO. 4Al GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE §
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, § H0040519931 [VENI W. FONOTII §
Petitioner, §
§
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS §
STEVEN JAY ROZAN, §
§
Respondent. §
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND
. .
Parties and Appearance
On October 18, 2007, came to be heard the above styled and numbered cause. Petitioner, the
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, appearedby and through its attorney of record,
Shannon Breaux Sauceda, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and announced ready. Respondent,
STEVEN JAY ROZAN, Texas Bar Number 17357000, appeared pro se and announced ready.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The Evidentiary Pan~14Al having been duly appointed to hear this complaint by the chair of
the Grievance Committee for State Bar of Texas District 4A, finds that it has jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter of this action and that venue is proper.
Professional Misconduct
The Evidentiary Panel, having considered all of the pleadings, evidence, stipulations, and
argument, finds Respondent has committed Professional Misconduct as defined by Rule 1.06M of
the TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 1 ofS
·
, I
Findings of Fact
The Evidentiary Panel, having considered the pleadings, evidence and argument of counsel,
makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: ,
1. 'Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas and is a member of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS.
2 . Respondent resides in and maintains his principal place of practice in Harris County, Texas.
3. On September 6, 20.0.4, Veni W. Fonoti ("hereinafter referred to as Fonoti") wrote to Respondent exploring possible representation for post-conviction relief.
4. On September 17, 200.4, Respondent wrote to Fonoti that he would undertake the representation for Fifteen Thousand and No/IOO Dollars ($15,000), and Respondent described specifically what services he would provide.
5. After not hearing from Fonoti, Respondent wrote to him on October 13, 2004, indicating that he would provide the same services for Ten Thousand and No/IOD Dollars ($10.,00.0.).
6. Fonoti retained Respondent and paid him Ten Thousand and No/IOO Dollars ($10,000).
7. On November 20, 20.0.4, Respondent wrote to Fonoti and outlined his plan of action regarding his legal matter, including what steps would be undertaken in November and December of2D04.
8. Respondent did not thereafter undertake any legal work for Fonoti,
9. Respondent further did not communicate with Fonoti until June 1, 20.05, despite repeated attempts by Fonoti to contact Respondent by phone and mail in November 20.04, December 2004, and January 20.0.5.
10.. On January 27,20.0.5. Fonoti wrote to Respondent terminating the legal representation and demanding the return of unearned legal fees.
11. Respondent failed to returned unearned legal fees to Fonoti.
12. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS has incurred reasonable attorneys' fees and direct expenses associated with this Disciplinary Proceeding in the amount of Two Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety-Three and 7511 00 Dollars ($2,893.75).
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 2 of5
'.<
13. Respondent owes restitution in the amount of Ten Thousand and No/IOO Dollars ($10,000.00) payable to Veni W. Fonoti, This award of restitution does not in anyway preclude Veni W. Fonoti from using the restitution to re-hire Respondent to represent him.
Conclusions of Law
The Evidentiary Panel concludes that, based on foregoing findings of fact, the following
TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT have been violated: Rules 1.01 (b )(2) [in
representing a client, frequently failing to carry out completely the obligations owed to a client or
clients]; 1.03( a) [failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and failing
to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information]; and 1.1S(d) [upon termination of
representation, failing to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect adient's interests,
such as giving reasonable notice to the client to seek other counsel, surrendering papers and property
to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payments of fee that has not been earned].
Sanction
The Evidentiary Panel, having found Respondent has committed Professional Misconduct,
heard and considered additional evidence regarding the appropriate sanction to be imposed against
Respondent. After hearing all evidence and argument and after having considered the factors in Rule
2.18 of the TEXAS RULE OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE, the Evidentiary Panel finds said findings and
conclusions support a Judgment of Public Reprimand.
. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that a Public Rep~and be
imposed against Respondent in accordance with the TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page30f5
RestitutIon, Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall pay restitution to VENI W. FONOTI in the
amount ofTen Thousand and Noll 00 Dollars ($10,000.00), by no later than ninety (90) days after the
. .
signing of this Judgment. Respondent shall pay the restitution by certified or cashier's check or
money order made payable to VENI W. FONOTI and delivered to the STATE BAR OF TEXAS, Chief
Disciplinary Counsel, 6300 La Calma, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78752. This award of restitution in
this Judgment does not in any way restrict o~ prevent Respondent from entering into a new
contract/agreement concerning' representation of FON OT!.
It is further ORD~RED Respondent shall pay all reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and direct: expenses to the STATE BAR·OF TEXAS in the amount of Two Thousand Eight Hundred
. .
Ninety-Three and 751100 Dollars ($2,893.75). The payment shall be due andpayabJe by no later
than sixty (60) days after the signing of this Judgment, and shall be made by certified or cashier'
.. check or money order. Respondent shall forward the funds, made payable to the STATE BAR OF
TEXAS, to the STATE BAR OF TEXAS, CbiefDisciplinary Counsel, 6300 La Calma, Suite 300, Austin,
Texas 78752.
It is further ORDERED that all amounts ordered herein are due to the misconduct of
Respondent, are assessed as a part of the sanction in accordance with Rule 1.06(y) of the TEXAS
RULES OF DrSCIPLlNARY PROCEDURE. Any amount not paid shall accrue interest at the maximum
legal rate per annum until paid and the STATE B~R OF TEXAS shall have all writs and other post-
judgment remedies against Respondent in order to collect all unpaid amounts.
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 40f5
Publication
This reprimand shall be made a matter of record and appropriately published in accordance
with the TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.
Other Relief
All requested reli.efnot expressly granted herein is expressly DENIED.
SIGN}?D this 38ay of C)c.:~ be~
,2007.
EVIDENTIARY PANEL DISTRICT NO. 4Al
STATE ROFTEXAS
-a._/
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 5 of5
BEFORE THE EVIDENTIARY PANEL OF THE STATE BAR DISTRICT NO. 4Al GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE §
COMMISSION FOR LA W.YER DISCIPLINE I § H0040622285 [MORRISON·LOWE] §
Petitioner, §
§
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS §
STEVEN JAY ROZAN, §
§
Respondent. §
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND
Parties and Appearance
On October 18, 2007, came to be heard the above styled and numbered cause. Petitioner, the
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, appeared by and through its attorney of record,
'Shannon Breaux Sauceda, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and announced ready. Respondent,
STEVEN JAY ROZAN, Texas Bar Number 17357000, appeared pro se and announced ready.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The Evidentiary Panel4A 1, having been duly appointed to hear this complaint by the chair of
the Grievance Committee for State Bar of Texas District 4A, finds that it has jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter of this action and that venue is proper.
Professional Misconduct
The Evidentiary Panel, having .considered all of the pleadings, evidence, stipulations, and
argument, finds Respondent has committed Professional Misconduct as defined by Rule 1.06(V) of
the TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 1 er s
Findings of Fact
The Evidentiary Panel, having considered the pleadings, evidence and argument of counsel,
makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas and is a member of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS.
2. Respondent resides in and maintains his principal place of practice in Harris County, Texas.
3. On or about April 6, 2005, Jo Ann Morrison-Lowe (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") hired Respondent to represent her son, Cyron Morrison (hereinafter referred to as "Morrison"), in a criminal appeal styled United States o(America v. Cyron Dondell Morrison, No. 05-50025, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and to handle Rule 35 proceedings by which Morrison would receive credits toward his sentence for his cooperation with authorities in a separate matter.
4. Respondent was paid Seven Thousand Five Hundred and NolDollars ($7,500.00) for the representation.
5. On or about July 12, 2005, Respondent filed the appellant's brief on behalf of Morrison.
6. The Court's opinion, affirming the lower court's decision, was entered on October 27, 2005.
7. Beginning in June of2005, Morrison wrote to Respondent on more than one occasion; however, Respondent did not respond to any of these communications.
8. As of March 29, 2006, neither Morrison nor Complainant had received any communications and/or updates on the status of the case from Respondent.
9. DUring the . course of the representation, Complainant, on Morrison's behalf, and . Morrison requested the client file in order to continue with Morrison's case; however, Respondent failed and refused to comply with said requests.
10. On or about April 11, 2006, Respondent received notice from the STATE BAR OF TEXAS of the pending grievance which required that Respondent file a written response to the allegations of professional misconduct within thirty (30) days of receipt.
11. Respondent's response was due on or about May 11, 2006; however Respondent did not file a response until June 26, 2006.
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND .
Page20fS
12. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS has incurred reasonable attorneys' fees and direct expenses associated with this Disciplinary Proceeding in the amount of One Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Five and 90/100 Dollars ($1,665.90).
13. Respondent owes restitution in the amount of One Thousand and NollOO Dollars ($1,000.00) payable to Joarm Morrison-Lowe.
Conclusions of Law
The Evidentiary Panel concludes that, based on foregoing findings of fact, the following
TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT have been violated: Rules 1.03( a) [failing
to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and failing to promptly comply with
reasonable requests for information]; 1.03(b) [failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably
necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation]; 1.1S(d)
[failing, upon termination' of representation, to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to
protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and
refunding any advance payments of fee that has not been earned]; and 8.04(a)(8) [failing to timely
furnish to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office a response or other information as required by the
TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE].
Sanction
The Evidentiary Panel, having found Respondent has committed Professional Misconduct,
heard and considered additional evidence regarding the appropriate sanction to be imposed against
.. Respondent. After hearing all evidence and argument and after having considered the factors in Rule
2.18 of the TEXAS RULE OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE, the Evidentiary Panel finds said findings and
conclusions support a Judgment of Public Reprimand.
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 3 of5
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that a Public Reprimand be
imposed against Respondent in. accordance with the TEXAS RULES OF DrSCIPLlNARY PROCEDURE.
Restitution, Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall pay restitution to JO ANN MORRISON-LOWE
in the amount of One Thousan,d and Noll 00 Dollars ($1,000.00), by no later than thirty (30) days
after the signing of this Judgment. Respondent shall pay the restitution by certified or cashier's
check or money order made payable to JO ANN MORRISON-LOWE and delivered to the STATE
BAR OF TEXAS, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, 6300 La Calma, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78752. .
It is further ORDERED that Respondent shall tender his client file regarding Morrison to
Joann Morrison-Lowe by no later than thirty (30) days after the signing of this Judgment.
Respondent shall provide proof of completion to the STATE BAR OF TEXAS, Chief Disciplinary
Counsel, 6300 La Calma, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78752, contemporaneouslywith the return of the
client file.
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall pay all reasonable and necessary attorney's fees
and direct expenses to the STATE BAR OF TEXAS in the amount of One Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-
Five and 901100 Dollars ($1,665.90). The payment shall be due and payable byno later than thirty
(30) days after the signing of the Judgment, and shall be made by certified or cashier's check or
money order. Respondent shall forward the funds, made payable to the STA TEBAR OF TEXAS, to the
STATE BAR OF TEXAS, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, 6300 La Calma, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78752.
It is further ORDERED that all amounts ordered herein are due to the misconduct of
Respondent, are assessed as a part of the sanction in accordance with Rule. 1.06(y) ofthe TEXAS
RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE .. Any amount not paid shall accrue interest at the maximum
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 4 015
.. '
legal rate per annum until paid and the 8TA TE BAR OF TEXAS shall have all writs and other post-
judgment remedies against Respondent in order to collect all unpaid amounts.
Publication
This reprimand shall be made a matter of record and appropriately published in accordance
with the TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.
Other Relief
All requested relief not expressly granted herein is expressly DENIED.
SIGNED this ~ay of C)c.... Lob.e.r
,2007.
EVIDENTIARY PANEL DISTRICT NO. 4Al
STAT OF TEXAS
OHN CHAPOTON, istrict 4Al Presiding Member
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 5 of5
BUSINESS RECORDS AFFIDAVIT OF J.G. MOLLESTON
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared J.G. MOLLESTON who, being by me duly sworn, deposed as follows:
My name is J.G. MOLLESTON. I am of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts herein stated.
I am employed as Houston Regional Counsel for the STATE BAR OF TEXAS. I am the custodian of records of the Houston Regional Office of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS. Attached hereto are twenty-five (25) pages of records kept by the STATE BAR OF TEXAS concerning disciplinary actions against the law license of STEVEN JAY ROZAN, State Bar No. 17357000.
These said twenty-five (25) pages of records are kept by the STATE BAR OF TEXAS in the regular course of business, and it was the regular course of business of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS for an employee or representative of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS, with knowledge of the act, event, condition, or opinion recorded to make the record or to' transmit information thereof to be included in such record; and the record was made at or near the time or reasonably soon thereafter. The records attached hereto are the original or exact duplicates of the original.
OL TON
HOllS n Regional Counsel Jefferson, Suite 1000 Houston, Texas 77002
Phone: (713) 758-8200
Fax: (713) 758-8292
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before 'me on th~ ~y of February, 2010.
~~~
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
BAR OF TEXAS
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
SHAWN MARIE LESl.IE
*i MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
f
FEBRUARY 8. 201()
Business Records Affidavit of J. G. Mo/leslon/Steven Jay Rozan
On this day; came to be heard the above styled an~ numbered cause. Petitioner and
Respondent, Steven Jay Rozan, Texas Bar Number 17357000, announce that. an agreement has
been reached on all metters inoluding the imposition of a Partially Probated Suspension.
Jurisdiction and Venue
~ .
The Evidentiary Panel 4A having been duly appointed to hear this complaint by the chair
of the Grievance Committee for State Bar of Texas District 4~ finds that it has jurisdiction over
. .
the parties and the subject matter of this action, and that venue is proper .
. ProfessiDnal Misconduct
The Evidentiary Panel, having considered the pleadings, admissions, stipulations and
agreements of the parties, finds Respondent has committed Professional Misconduct as defined
by Rule l.06(V) of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure,
Findings of Fact
Petitioner and Respondent agree to- the following findings of fact. Accordingly, the Evidentiary Panel finds:
CFLD v. Steven Jay Rozan
Agreed Partially Probated Suspension
1. Respondent is .an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas and is a member of the State Bar of Texas.
2. Respondent resides in and maintains his principal place of practice in Harris County, Texas.
3. On March 28, 2ooS, Amuir Clausell bired Respondent to appeal bis federal criminal conviction. Clausell paid Respondent $15,000.00 for the representation. Respondent drafted and filed an extensive writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Clausell, which was denied by the Court. Respondent then filed a notice of appeal but the Court ruled it was late. Respondent failed to file a motion to reopen or take other corrective action.
4. On May 25, 2004, Juana Garcia hired Respondent to file for post-conviction relief on behalf of Miguel Botello. Respondent was paid $15,000.00 for the representation. Respondent moo the writ of habeas .corpus, which was subsequently denied. Upon appeal, Respondent failed to pay the docketing fee and the appeal was dismissed. The case was reinstated after Respondeat paid the docketing fee; but the case was later dismissed for want of prosecution.
5. On May 1, 2007, Domingo Campos hired Respondent to :file a motion to reduce his sentence in a federal criminal matter. Respondent was paid a retainer in the total amount of $1 0,000.00. Respondent failed to file the motion for reduction of sentence. By letter dated December 6, 2007, Campos terminated Respondent's services, requested a billing statement, and requested a refund of any unearned fees, Respondent agreed to refund a portion of the fees, but failed to do so. Respondent has also failed to comply with Campos' request for an accounting.
6. In March 2007, Gary Vaughn hired Respondent to seek a reduction in his sentence in a federal criminal matter. Respondent was paid $11~OOO.OO for the representation. By letter dated December 17. 2007. Vaughn terminated Respondent's services. Vaughn requested a refund of unearned fees and the return of his file. Respondent .failed to comply with either request
7. On June 9, 2006, Terrance Veltman hired Respondent for representation in filing a §22S5 in a federal case and a writ of habeas corpus in a state case. Both representations included appeals, if necessary. Veltman paid Respondent a total
. amount of $15,000.00 for the representations. Respondent filed the §22SS motion, which the magistrate reconunended be denied. The case was dismissed. Additionally, Respondent failed to reasonably communicate with Veltman regarding the status of his cases. Respondent failed to respond to the grievance filed by Veltman.
8. In November 2005, -Napole~n Randall hired Respondent for representation in an appeal of his criminal conviction. Randall paid Respondent $7,500.00 for the representation. Respondent timely filed the notice of appeal, but failed to file the brief and record excerpts, even after receiving an extension of time. During the· course ~f the representation, Randall made numerous attempts to contact Respondent to ascertain the status of his. case; however, Respondent failed to communicate with Randall. Randall also made a written request to Respondent for the return of his client file, as well as any unearned attomeys' fees. Respondent failed to comply with
Randall's request for a fee refund. .
9. In December 2005, Rosalinda Cabezuela hired Respondent to represent her sons, Hashim and Steven Thomas, on their respective cr:im1nal appeals, Cabezuela and her
Page2Qf9
"
CFLD v. Steven Jay Rozan
Agreed Partially Probated Suspension
sons terminated Respondent's servicea, Respondent failed to file a response to tho
grievance filed by Cabezuela. .
10. On April 16, 2006, Respondent was hired by Rebecca Dunn to represent her brother.
Philip Cooper in the filing a writ of habeas COIpUS. Respondent was paid $7,500.00 for the representation. Respondent failed to file the writ or take any action on Cooper's behalf. In response to a letter from Dunn, Respondent explained that recently decided case law would be helpful and that he would file the writ within the next 30 da.ys. Respondent failed to do so.
11. On March 23, 2007, Juan Licea-Cedillo hired Respondent to file a §225S writ of habeas corpus. Licea-Cedillo paid Respondent $10,000.00 for the representation. Respondent failed to timely file the writ arid as a result, the case was dismissed.
12. In January 2005, Taj'Smith hired Respondent for representation in his federal criminal trial. After he was convicted, Smith hired another attorney for postjudgment representation. Smith made numerous requests for his olient file, but
Respondent has been unable to locate it. .
13. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas has incurred reasonable attorneys" fees and direct expenses associated with this Disciplinary Proceeding in the amount of$5,840.00.
14. Respondent owes restitution in the amount of $40, 120.00 payable to:
Case No Complainant . Restitution
HOO80827386* A Clausell s 5,000.00
HOO50622484* J. Garcia (Botello) $ 3,500.00
H0040826442* D. Campos s 6,700.00
H0040826S45* G. Vaughn $7,370.00
H0040928605 T. Veltman. s 3,500.00
HOO10928146 N. Randall s 5,025.00
HOO60929107 R Cabezuela NlA
HOOS0928936 R.Dunn $ 5,025.00
(Cooper)
. H0090929534 J. Ucea-CednIo s 4)000.00
HOO90929550 T. Smith N/A
TOTAL s 40,120.00 Page 3 of9
· ."
CFLD v. Steven Jay Rozon
Agreed Po/tially Probated Susp_ension
Conclusions of Law
Petitioner and Respondent agree that) 'based on the foregoing findings of fact, the following Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct have been violated. Accordingly, the Evidentiary Panel concludes the following, rules of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of
Professional Conduct have been violated: Rules 1.01(b)(1). 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8).
Sanction
It is AGREED and ORDERFD that the sanction of a Partially Probated Suspension shall
be imposed against Respondent in accordance with the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Respondent be suspended from the practice oflaw for a period offive (5) years, beginning January 1,2010 and
ending December 31, 2014. Respondent shall be actively suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years beginning January 1,2010 and ending Deceinber 31,2011. The three
(3) year period of probated suspension shall begin on January 1. 2012 and shall end on December 31,2014.
Terms or Active Suspension
It is further ORDERED that during the term of active suspension ordered herein, or that
may be Jmposed upon Respondent by the Board of Disciplinary Appeals as a result of a
probation revocation proceeding, Respondent shall be prohibited from practicing law in Texas; holding himself out as an attorney at law; performing any legal services for others; accepting any
fee directly or indirectly for legal services; appearing as counselor in any representative capacity
in any proceeding in any Texas or Federal court or before any administrative body; or holding
himself out to others or using his name. in any manner, in conjunction with the words "attorney
at law," "attorney," "counselor at law, l' or "lawyer. II
Page 4 of9
eFLD v. Steven Jay Rozan
Agreed Partially Probated Suspension
It is further ORDERED that, on or before January 112010, Respondent shall notify each
'of-Respondent's current clients in writing of this suspension.
In addition to such notification, it is further ORDERED Respondent shall return any files,
" .
papers, unearned monies and other property belonging to current clients in Respondent's
possession to the respective clients or to another attorney at the client's request.
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall tile with the State Bar of Texas, State, P.O.
on or before February 1, 2010, an affidavit stating all current clients have been notified of
Respondent's suspension and that all fifes, papers, monies and oilier property belonging to all current clients have been returned as ordered herein.
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall, on or before January 1,2010, notifY in writing
each and every justice of the peace, judge, magistrate, administrative judge' or officer and chief justice of each and every court or tribunal in which Respondent has any matter pending of the
. .
terms of this judgment, the style and cause number of the pending matter(s); and the name;
address and telephone number olthe client(s) Respondent is representing,
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall file with the State Bar of Texas, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, Texas 78711-2487 (1414 Colorado Street, Suite 200, Austin Texas 78701)~ on or
before February 1, 2010~ an, affidavit stating Respondent has notified in writing each and every
justice of the peace, judge, magistrate, and chief justice of each and every court in which
Respondent.has any matter pending of'the terms of this judgment, the style and cause number of
the pending matter(s), and the name, address and telephone number of the client(s) Respondent is
representing in Court.
Pagc50f9
CFLD v. Steven Jay Rozan
Agreed P~Jial1y Probated Suspension
It is further ORDERED that, on or before January IS, 2010, Respondent shall surrender
his . law license and permanent State Bar Card to the State Bar of Texas, Chief Disciplinary . Counsel, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, Texas 78711-2487 (1414 Colorado Street, Suite 200, Austin
Texas 78701). to be. forwarded to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Terms of Probation
It is further ORDERED that during all periods of suspension, Respondent shall be under
the following tenns and conditions:
1. Respondent shall not violate any term of this judgment.
2. Respondent shall not engage in professional misconduct as defined by Rule 1.06(V) of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
3. Respondent shall not violate any state or federal eriminalatatutes.
4. . Respondent shall keep State Bar of Texas membership department notified of current
mailing) residence and business addresses and telephone numbers.
5. Respondent shall comply with Minimum Continuing Legal Education requirements.
6. Respondent shall comply with Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) requirements.
7. Respondent shall promptly respond to any request for information from the Chief Discip1ina.ry Counsel in connection with any investigation of any allegations <>f professional misconduct.
8, Respondent shall pay all reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and direct expenses to the State Bar of Texas in the. amount of $5,840.00 The payment shall be due and payable on or before June 30~ 2014 and shall be made by certified or cashier's check or money order. Respondent shall forward the funds, made payable to the State Bar of Texas, P.O. Box 12487~ Austin; Texas 78711-2487 (1414 Colorado Street,. Suite
200, Austin Texas 78701). .
9. Respondent shall pay restitution in the amount of $40,120.00) to be paid by monthly installments in the amount of $1,671.67 begint;ling January 31~ 2010 and ·ending December 31) 2011, by certified or cashier's check or money order, made payable to the State Bar of Texas; and delivered to the State Bar of Texas, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, Texas 78711-2487 (1414 Colorado Street, Suite 200, Austin Texas 78701).
Probation RevoCation
It is further ORDERED that, if Respondent violates any term. of this judgment, the Board
of Disciplinary Appeals (''BODN') shall enter an order revoking the probation and imposing the
active suspension of Respondent from the practice of law to commence on the date of revocation.
Page6of9
CFLD v, Steven Jay Rozan
Agreed Partially Probated Suspension
Upon determination that Respondent ~ violated any term of this judgment, the Chief
Disciplinary Counsel may. in addition to all other remedies available, file a motion to revoke
probation with BODA and serve a photocopy of the motion on Respondent pursuant to'
Tex.R.Civ.P.21a.
BODA shall conduct an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, BODA shall determine by a
preponderance of the evidence whether Respondent has violated any term of this Judgment If BODA fmds grounds for revocation, BODA shall enter an order re~oking probation and placing Respondent on active suspension from the date of such revocation order. Respondent shall not
be given credit for any term crprobanon served prior to revocation.
It is further ORDERED that any conduct on the part of Respondent which serves as the
basis for a motion to revoke probation may also be brought as independent grounds for discipline
as allowed WIder the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and Texas Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure,
Restitution. Attorney's Fees and Expenses
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall pay restitution on or before December 31,
2011. to be paid by monthly installments in the amount of $1 ,671.67 beginning January 31 ~ 2010
and ending December 31, 2011, by certified or cashier's check or money order, made payable to
the State Bar of Texas; and delivered to the State Bar of Texas, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, Texas
78711-2487 (1414 Colorado Street. Suite 200, Austin Texas 78701) for distribution to the
Complainants entitled to restitution.
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall pay all reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and direct expenses to the State Bar of Texas in the amount orin the amount of$5.840.00. The payment shall be due and payable on or before June 30. 2014 and shall be made by certified or
Page7of9
CFLD v. Steven Jay Rozan
Agreed Partially Probated Suspension
cashiers check or money order. Respondent shall forward the funds, made payable to the State
Bar of Texas, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, Texas 78711·2487 (1414 Colorado Street, Suite 200, Austin Texas 78701).
It is further ORDBRED that all amounts ordered herein are due to the misconduct of
Respondent, are assessed as a part of the sanction in accordance with Rule 1.06(Y) of the Texas
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Any amount not paid shall accrue interest at the maximum.
legal rate per annum until paid and the State Bar of Texas shall have all writs· and other post-
judgment remedies against Respondent in order.to collect all unpaid amounts.
Publication
This suspension shalt be made a matter of record and appropriately published in
accordance with the Texas Rules ofDiscip~ Procedure . . Other Relief
All requested relief not expressly granted herein is expressly DENIED.
SIGNBDtbis~ayof ,~C~
,2009.
EVIDENTIARY PANEL' DISTRICT NO. 4A . STATE BAR OF TEXAS
~,~
DAVID HODGE
Distriet 4A Presiding Member
Page 8 of9 .
,';. .
CFLD v. SIMn Jay RoIaII
Agrwd ParJltJI) Pt'Dba1ld &.topmslon
AGllIQ MTO JIOlllFOBM Arm SllBSTANC.&:
@.f!i/tP7J
State Bar No. 17357000 lteqKmdad
.. /4
ShMnon Breaux Sauceda Assistant Disoiplbwy CoWl$tl State Bar No. 24002896
Cou ... , for Petitioner
e'"
State Bat' No. 12137400 C01lltei for hlpolldeat
."
.,
BEFORE THE EVIDENTIARY PANEL OF THE STATE BAR DISTRICT NO. 4A GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, § S0020819730 [ANTONIO SANCHEZ] §
Petitioner, §
§
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS §
STEVEN JAY ROZAN, §
§
Respondent. §
JUDGMENT OF ACTIVE SUSPENSION
Parties and Appearance
On August 20,2009, came to be heard the above-styled and numbered cause. Petitioner, the
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, appeared by and through its attorney of record,
Shannon Breaux Sauceda, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and announced ready. Respondent,
STEVEN JAY ROZAN (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent"), Texas Bar Number 17357000,
appeared in person and announced ready.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The Evidentiary Panel4A having been duly appointed to hear this complaint by the chair of
the Grievance Committee for STATE BAR OF TEXAS District 4, finds that it has jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter of this action and that venue is proper.
Professional Misconduct
The Evidentiary Panel, having considered all of the pleadings, evidence, stipulations, and
argument, finds Respondent has committed Professional Misconduct as defined by Rule 1.06(V) of
THE TExAs RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.
JUDGMENT OF ACTIVE SUSPENSION Page 1 of6
...
Findings of Fact
The Evidentiary Panel, having considered the pleadings, evidence and argument of counsel,
makes the following findings offact and conclusions of law:
1. Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas and is a member ofthe STA 1E BAR OF TEXAS.
2. Respondent resides in and maintains his principal place of practice in Harris County, Texas.
3. On April 20, 2006, Antonio Sanchez (Sanchez) hired Respondent to defend him in an asset forfeiture case styled United States o(America v. Waxwing Circle P. et ai, Civil No. 5:06-CV-00124-0LG, In the United StatesDistrict Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division.
4. Sanchez paid Respondent Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Noll 00 Dollars ($7,500.00) for the representation.
5. During the course of the representation, Respondent failed to communicate with Sanchez about the status of the case and failed to respond to reasonable requests for information.
6. After filing a verified claim on behalf of Sanchez, Respondent failed to take any further action and in effect, abandoned the representation. Respondent did not withdraw from the case.
7. A default judgment was entered against Sanchez on December 19,2007.
8. Respondent failed to notify Sanchez of said default judgment.
9. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS has incurred reasonable attorneys' fees associated with this Disciplinary Proceeding in the amount of One Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-Five and No/I 00 Dollars ($1,925.00).
10. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS has incurred reasonable direct expenses associated with this Disciplinary Proceeding in the amount of Eight Hundred Thirty-Six and 70/100 Dollars ($836.70).
11. Respondent owes restitution in the amount of Two Thousand Five Hundred and Noll 00 Dollars ($2,500.00) payable to Antonio Sanchez.
JUDGMENT OF ACTIVE SUSPENSION Page 2016
Conclusions of Law
The Evidentiary Panel concludes that, based on foregoing findings of fact, the following
TEXAS DISCIPLlNARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT have been violated: Rules 1.01(b)(1) [in
representing a client, a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer]; 1.03(a) [a
lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with
reasonable requests for information]; 1.IS( a)(l) [a lawyer shall decline to represent a client or, where
representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if the
representation will result in violation of Rule 3.08, other applicable rules of professional conduct or
other law]; and 1.IS(d) [upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client,
allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client
is entitled and refunding any advance payments of fee that has not been earned].
Sanction
The Evidentiary Panel, having found that Respondent has committed professional
misconduct, heard and considered additional evidence regarding the appropriate sanction to be
imposed against Respondent. After hearing all evidence and argument and after having considered
the factors in Rule 2.iS of the TEXAS RULE OF DlSCIPLINARY PROCEDURE~ the Evidentiary Panel
finds said findings and conclusions support a Judgment of Active Suspension.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Respondent shall be
actively suspended from the practice oflaw for a period of twelve (12) months beginning September
21, 2009t and ending September 20,2010.
JUDGMENT OF ACTIVE SUSPENSION Page 3 of6
Terms of Active Suspension
It is further ORDERED that during the term of active suspension ordered herein, Respondent
shall be prohibited from practicing law in Texas; holding himself out as an attorney at law;
performing any legal services for others; accepting any fee directly or indirectly for legal services;
appearing as counselor in any representative capacity in any proceeding in any Texas or Federal
court or before ~y administrative body; or holding himself out to others or using his name, in any
maimer, in conjunction with the words "attorney at law," "attorney," "counselor at law:' or "lawyer."
It is further ORDERED that, on or before September 21, 2009, Respondent shall notify each
of Respondent's current clients in writing of this suspension.
In addition to such notification, it is further ORDERED "Respondent shall return any files,
papers, unearned monies and other property belonging to current clients in Respondent's possession
to the respective clients or to another attorney at the client's request.
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall file with the STATE BAR OF TEXAS, Chief
. It is further ORDERED that all amounts ordered herein are due to the misconduct of
Respondent, are assessed as a part of the sanction in accordance with Rule 1.06(y) of the TEXAS
RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE. Any amount not paid shall accrue interest at the maximum
legal rate per annum until paid and the STATE BAR OF TEXAS shall have all writs and other post-
judgment remedies against Respondent in order to collect all unpaid amounts.
Publication
This suspension shall be made a matter of record and appropriately published in accordance
with the TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.
Other Relief
All requested relief not expressly granted herein is expressly DENIED.
SIGNED this z.g~ day of Aw,4Af ,2009.
EVIDENTIARY PANEL DISTRICT NO. 4A STATE BAR OF TEXAS
X?~.~
DA VIJ;) HOpGES
District 4A Presiding Member
JUDGMENT OF ACTIVE SUSPENSION Page 6 of6
· 'I, .
v
BEFORE THE EVIDENTIARY PANEL OF THE STATE BAR DISTRICT NO. 4Al GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE §
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLThTE, § H0040519931 [VENI W. FONOTIJ §
Petitioner, §
§
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS §
STEVEN JAY ROZAN, §
§
Respondent. §
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND
Parties and Appearance
On October 18, 2007, came to be heard the above styled and numbered cause. Petitioner, the
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, appeared.by and through its attorney of record,
Shannon Breaux Sauceda, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel .. and announced ready. Respondent,
STEVEN JAY ROZAN, Texas Bar Number 17357000, appearedpro se and announced ready.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The Evidentiary Panel d.Al having been duly appointed to hear this complaint by the chair of
the Grievance Committee for State Bar of Texas District 4A, finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action and that venue is 'proper.
Professiona1 Misconduct
The Evidentiary Panel, having considered all of the pleadings, evidence, stipulations, and
argument, finds Respondent has committed Professional Misconduct as defined by Rule 1. 06(V) of
the TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 1 of5
Findings of Fact
The Evidentiary Panel, having considered the pleadings, evidence and argument of counsel,
makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law;
1. Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas and is a member of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS.
2 . Respondent resides in and maintains his principal place of practice in Harris County, Texas.
3. On September 6,2004, Vern W. Fonoti ("hereinafter referred to as Fonoti") wrote to Respondent exploring possible representation for post-conviction relief.
4. On September 17, 2004, Respondent wrote to Fonoti that he would undertake the representation for Fifteen Thousand and NollOO Dollars ($15,000), and Respondent described specifically what services he would provide.
5. After not hearing from Fonoti, Respondent wrote to him on October 13, 2004, indicating that he would provide the same services for Ten Thousand and Noll 00 Dollars ($10,000).
6. Fonoti retained Respondent and paid him Ten Thousand and Noll 00 Dollars ($10,000).
7. On November 20,2004, Respondent wrote to Fonoti and outlined his plan of action regarding his legal matter, including what steps would be undertaken in November and
December of 2004. . .
8. Respondent did not thereafter undertake any legal work for Fonoti.
9. Respondent further did not communicate with Fonoti until June 1, 2005, despite repeated attempts by Fonoti to contact Respondent by phone and mail in November 2004, December 2004, and January 2005.
10. On January 27,2005, Fonoti wrote to Respondent terminating the legal representation and demanding the return of unearned legal fees.
11. Respondent failed to returned unearned legal fees to Fonoti.
12. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel oftlie STATE BAR OF TEXAS has incurred reasonable attorneys' fees and direct expenses associated with this DIsciplinary Proceeding in the amount of Two Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety-Three and 7511 00 Dollars ($2,893.75).
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 2 of5
..
13. Respondent owes restitution in the amount of Ten Thousand and NollOa Dollars ($10,000.00) payable to Veni W. Fonoti. This award of restitution does not in anyway preclude Veni W. Fonoti from using the restitution to re-hire Respondent to represent him.
Conclusions of Law
The Evidentiary Panel concludes that, based on foregoing findings of fact, the following
TExAs DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT have been violated: Rules 1.01 (b )(2) [in
representing a client, frequently failing to cany out completely the obligations owed to a client or
clients J; 1.03( a) [failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and failing
to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information]; and 1.1S(d) [upon termination of
representation, failing to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests,
such as giving reasonable notice to the client to seek other counsel, surrendering papers and property
to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payments of fee that has not been earned].
Sanction
The Evidentiary Panel, having found Respondent has committed Professional Misconduct,
heard and considered additional evidence regarding the appropriate sanction to be imposed against
Respondent. After hearing all evidence and argument and after having considered the factors in Rule
2.18 of the TEXAS RULE OFDISCIPL1NARY PROCEDURE, the Evidentiary Panel finds said findings and
conclusions support a Judgment of Public Reprimand.
- Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that a Public Reprimand be
imposed against Respondent in accordance with the TEXAS RULES OF DISClPLINARY PROCEDURE.
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 30[5
" .
RestitutIon, Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall pay restitution to VENI W. FONOTI in the
amount ofTen Thousand and Noll 00 Dollars ($10,000.00), by no later than ninety (90) days after the
. .
signing of this Judgment: Respondent shall pay the restitution by certified or cashier's check or
money order made payable to VENI W. FONOTI and delivered to the STATE BAR OF TEXAS, Chief
Disciplinary Counsel, 6300 La Calma, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78752. This award of restitution in
this Judgment does not in any way restrict or prevent Respondent from entering into a new
contract/agreement concerning representation of FON OTl
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall pay all reasonable and necessary attorney's fees
and direct expenses to the STATE BAR-OF TEXAS in the amount of Two Thousand Eight Hundred
. .
Ninety-Three and 75/100 Dollars ($2,893.75). The payment shall be due and payable by no later
,
than sixty (60) days after the signing of this Judgment, and shall he ma~e by certified or cashier'
. check or money order. Respondent shall forward the funds, made payable to the STATE BAR OF
TEXAS, to the $TATEBAR OF TEXAS, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, 6300 La Calma, Suite 300, Austin,
Texas 78752.
It is further ORDERED that an amounts ordered herein are due to the misconduct of
Respondent, are assessed as a part of the sanction in accordance with Rule 1.06(Y) of the TEXAS
RULES OF DrSCIPLWARY PROCEDURE. Any amount not paid shall accrue interest at the maximum
legal rate per annum. until paid and the STATE BAR OF TEXAS shall have all writs and other post-
judgment remedies against Respondent in order to collect all unpaid amounts.
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 4 of 5
" .. ,
,.
Publication
This reprimand shall be made a matter of record and appropriately published in accordance
with the TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.
Other Relief
All requested relief not expressly granted herein is expressly DENIED.
r:t.l ,_~ rf:\,. ~l _
SIG~D this ~day of__;::L.I=-_'-- __ 'Ce__,,'--_, 2007.
EVIDENTIARY PANEL DISTRICT NO. 4Al
STATE R OF TEXAS
~I
J HN CHAPOTON, JR. Di ict 4Al Presiding Membe
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 5 of 5
· .
I I
BEFORE THE EVIDENTIARY PANEL OF THE STATE BAR DISTRICT NO. 4Al GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE §
COMMISSION FOR LA W.YER DISCIPLINE, § H0040622285 [MORRISON-LOWE] §
Petitioner, §
§
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS §
STEVEN JAY ROZAN, §
§
Respondent. §
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND
Parties and Appearance
On October 18, 2007, came to be heard the above styled and numbered cause. Petitioner, the
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, appeared by and through its attorney of record,
'Shannon Breaux Sauceda, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and announced ready. Respondent,
STEVEN JAY ROZAN, Texas Bar Number 17357000, appeared pro se and announced ready.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The Evidentiary Pane14A 1, having been duly appointed to hear this complaint by the chair of
the Grievance Committee for State Bar of Texas District 4A, finds that it has jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter of this action and that venue is proper.
Professional Misconduct
The Evidentiary Panel, having.considered all of the pleadings, evidence, stipulations, and
argument, finds Respondent has committed Professional Misconduct as defined by Rule 1.06(V) of
the TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 1 of 5
·.
Findings of Fact
The Evidentiary Panel, having considered the pleadings, evidence and argument of counsel,
makes the following findings of fact and conclusions oflaw:
1. Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas and is a member ofthe STATE BAR OF TEXAS.
2. Respondent resides in and maintains his principal place of practice in Harris County, Texas.
3. On or about April 6, 2005, Jo Ann Morrison-Lowe (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") hired Respondent to represent her son, Cyron Morrison (hereinafter referred to as "Morrison"), in a criminal appeal styled United States of America v. Cyron Donde!! Morrison, No. 05-50025, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and to handle Rule 35 proceedings by which Morrison would receive credits toward his sentence for his cooperation with authorities in a separate matter.
4. Respondent was paid S even Thousand Five Hundred and NolDollars ($7,500.00) for the representation.
5. On or about July 12, 2005, Respondent filed the appellant's brief on behalf of Morrison.
6. The Court's opinion, affirming the lower court's decision, was entered on October 27, 2005.
7. Beginning in June of2005, Morrison wrote to Respondent on more than one occasion; however, Respondent did not respond to any of these communications.
8. As of March 29, 2006, neither Morrison nor Complainant had received any communications and/or updates on the status of the case from Respondent.
9. During the . course of the representation, Complainant, on Morrison's behalf, and .Morrison requested the client file in order to continue with Morrison's case; however, Respondent failed and refused to comply with said requests.
. .
10. On or about April 11, 2006, Respondent received notice from the STATE BAR OF TEXAS
of the pending grievance which required that Respondent file a written response to the allegations ofprofes~ional misconduct within thirty (30) days of receipt.
11. Respondent's response was due on or about May 11, 2006; however Respondent did not file a response until June 26, 2006.
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND .
Page2of5
.
1)
12. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the STATE BAR OF TEXAS has incurred reasonable attorneys' fees and direct expenses associated with this Disciplinary Proceeding in the amount of One Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Five and 90/100 Dollars ($1,665.90).
13. Respondent owes restitution in the amount of One Thousand and No/lOO Dollars ($1,000.00) payable to Joann Morrison-Lowe.
Conclusions of Law
The Evidentiary Panel concludes that, based on foregoing findings of fact, the following
TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT have been violated: Rules 1.03(a) [failing
to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and failing to promptly comply with
reasonable requests for information]; 1.03(b) [failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably
necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation]; 1.15(d)
[failing, upon termination' of representation, to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to
. .
protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and
refunding any advance payments of fee that has not been earned]; and 8.04(a)(8) [failing to timely
furnish to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office a response or other information as required by the
TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE].
Sanction
The Evidentiary Panel, having found Respondent has committed Professional Misconduct,
heard and considered additional evidence regarding the appropriate sanction to be imposed against
.' Respondent. After hearing all evidence and argument and after having considered the factors in Ru1e
2.18 of the TEXAS RULE OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE, the Evidentiary Panel finds said findings and
conclusions support a Judgment of Public Reprimand.
JUDGMENT OF. PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 3 ers
· .
'\,
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that a Public Reprimand be
imposed against Respondent in. accordance with the TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.
Restitution, Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall pay restitution to JO ANN MORRISON-LOWE
in the amount of One Thousand and No/IOO Dollars ($1,000.00), by no later than thirty (30) days
after the signing of this Judgment. Respondent shall pay the restitution by certified or cashier's
check or money order made payable to JO ANN MORRISON-LOWE and delivered to the STATE
BAR OF TEXAS, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, 6300 La Calma, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78752. .
It is further ORDERED that Respondent shall tender his client file regarding Morrison to
Joann Morrison-Lowe by no later than thirty (30) days after the signing of this Judgment.
Respondent shall provide proof of completion to the STATE BAR OF TEXAS, Chief Disciplinary
Counsel, 6300 La Calma, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78752, contemporaneously with the return of the
client file.
It is further ORDERED Respondent shall pay all reasonable and necessary attorney's fees
and direct expenses to the STATE BAR OF TEXAS in the amount of One Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-
Five and 901100 Dollars ($1,665.90). The payment shall be due and payable by no later than thirty
(30) days after the signing of the Judgment, and shall be made by certified or cashier's check or
money order. Respondent shall forward the funds, made payable to the STA 1EBAR OF TEXAS, to the
STATE BAR OF TEXAS., Chief Disciplinary Counsel, 6300 La Calma. Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78752.
It is further ORDERED that all amounts ordered herein are due to the misconduct of
Respondent, are assessed as a part of the sanction in accordance with Rule.l.06(y) of the TEXAS
RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.. Any amount not paid shall accrue interest at the maximum
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND Page 4 of5
"I '
(
legal rate per annum until paid and the STATE BAR OF TEXAS shall have all writs and other post-
judgment remedies against Respondent in order to collect all unpaid amounts.
Publication
This reprimand shall be made a matter of record and appropriately published in accordance
with the TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE.
Other Relief
All requested reliefnot expressly granted herein is expressly DENIED.
SIGNED this ~ay of C)c:..~b..e..r
,2007.
EVIDENTIARY PANEL DISTRICT NO. 4Al
STAT OF TEXAS
OHN CHAPOTON, istrict 4Al Presiding Member
JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND PageS ofS
.. '
3/30/2010
Statement of Costs
Steven J. Rozan
09-00241
Administrative Fee
91.00
Amount Due
$
91.00
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 675
DENVER, CO 80202
Complainant: Case Number:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, IOPDJ027
Respondent:
STEVEN JAY ROZAN.
ORDER APPROVING CONDITIONAL ADMISSION OF MISCONDUCT
AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 251.22 This matter is before the Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("the Court") on a "Stipulation, Agreement and Affidavit Containing the Respondent's Conditional Admission of Misconduct" filed by Nancy L. Cohen, Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("the People"), and Steven Jay Rozan ("Respondent") on April 20, 2010. In this stipulation, the parties waive their right to a hearing under C.R.C.P. 251.22(c).
The Court, having reviewed the case file and the stipulation, and being fully advised of the issues presented, ORDERS the following:
1. The stipulation is accepted and approved.
2. STEVEN JAY ROZAN, Attorney Registration No. 10381, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of TWO (2) YEARS.
3. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.32, Respondent shall pay costs incurred in conjunction with this matter in the amount of $91.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. Costs are payable to the Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Offices. Statutory interest shall accrue from the date of this order. Should Respondent fail to make payment of the aforementioned costs and interest within thirty (30) days, Respondent shall be responsible for all additiorial costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred by the People in collecting the above-stated amount. The People may amend the amount of the judgment for additional costs and expenses by providing a motion and bill of costs to the Court.
1
4. Respondent SHALL pay restitution to his former clients as ordered by the Evidentiary Panel in the Texas discipline case before he applies for reinstatemen t.
THIS ORDER IS ENTERED THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2010. THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SUSPENSION IS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2010.
r . 17 o :
!/J/(>t<tL~l.-- i::-_ .. tu.~r)
WILLIAM R. LUCERO
PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
2
Respondent Steven Jay Rozan
2777 Allen Parkway, 10th Floor
Houston, TX 77019-2165 .
Via First Class Mail
Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel Nancy L. Cohen
1560 Broadway, Suite 1800 Denver, CO 80202
Via Hand Delivery
American Bar Association c/o Nadine Cignoni
Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel 1560 Broadway, Suite 1800
Denver, CO 80202
Via Hand Delivery
Board of Continuing Legal Education Karen Bradley
Assistant Executive Director 1560 Broadway, Suite 1820 Denver, CO 80202
Via Hand Delivery
Colorado Attorney Registration Elvia Mondragon
1560 Broadway, Suite 1810 Denver, CO 80202
Via Hand Delivery
Colorado Bar Association Charles Turner
Executive Director
1900 Grant Street, Suite 950 Denver, CO 80203-4309
Via First Class Mail
Colorado Supreme Court Susan Festag
101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202
Via Hand Delivery
IRS, Office of Professional Responsibility Attn: Kathy Gibbs
SE: OPR, 1111, Constitutional Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20224
Via First Class Mail
Martindale Hubbell Law Directory Attn: Joe Rudy, Rating Consultant P.O. Box 31
New Providence, NJ 07974
Via First Class Mail
Metro Lawyer Referral Service
3000 South Jamaica Court, Suite 120 Aurora, CO 80014
Via First Class Mail
Supreme Court of the United States Perry Thompson
Admissions Office
1 First Street Northeast Washington, D.C. 20543
Via First Class Mail
United States Bankruptcy Court Brad Bolton
721 19th Street, Room 117 Denver, CO 80202-2508
Via First Class Mail
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Byron White United States Courthouse 1823 Stout Street
Denver, CO 80257
Via First Class Mail
United States District Court, District of Colorado
Motion To Strike Defendants' (I) Improper and Untimely Affirmative Deposition Designations and (Ii) Untimely Deposition Objections and Counter-Designations
Charles Smith and Irene Smith v. United States of America and David M. Satz, JR., United States Attorney For The District of New Jersey, 377 F.2d 739, 3rd Cir. (1967)