Opinion
D.D. No. 41
Decided June 5, 1963.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disciplinary action — Indefinite suspension from practice — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The relator, the Columbus Bar Association, filed a complaint against the respondent, Joseph Fodor, charging him with misconduct as defined in paragraph five of Rule XXVII of the Rules of Practice of this court.
A hearing was had before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The board found that respondent was born in Hungary; that he was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1931; that he practiced in Cuyahoga County until 1941 when he was employed by the state; that from 1949 to 1961 he was in private practice in Columbus; and that in 1961 he was appointed as real estate advisor with the United States Army Engineers and now has the title of "attorney-advisor and closing attorney" in real estate transactions.
The charges against respondent involve services requested of him by one Verag Beres who wished to procure credentials which would permit her to practice as a practical nurse in the United States; services requested by one Sigmund J. Konigszeder who was licensed as a physician in Hungary and desired to procure a physician's license in the United States; and services rendered in the settlement of the estate of one Katie Benyi in the Probate Court of Franklin County.
Relative to the complaint of Beres, the board found that respondent received $800 or more when she employed him; that the evidence does not disclose that any fee was agreed upon; that respondent was to use the money as might be necessary to establish her qualifications to engage in practical nursing; and that after several months she became dissatisfied and demanded the return of the money. Respondent testified that he wrote seven institutions in Hungary for her record and enclosed a check for $35 in each letter. The checks were not returned and have never cleared through the bank. The bank records indicate that respondent's account was insufficient to cover the checks. He did not succeed in procuring a license for her. He repaid $100 and claimed pay for his services. Later he gave her a note for $650. Respondent contends that the $800 was not a trust fund and he was free to use it as he saw fit; that embezzlement cannot be sustained; and that the total value of his services was $250.
Relative to the complaint of Sigmund J. Konigszeder, the board found that he was a physician in Hungary and wished to qualify to take the state medical board examination in Illinois. He employed respondent and gave him two checks, one for $850 and one for $65. The client testified that there was no agreement as to fees. The desired permit to take the examination was not procured. Konigszeder employed another attorney and demanded the return of the money he had given respondent. Respondent claimed that he should be paid at least $250 for his services. Respondent sent a check to Konigszeder for $350, which was not honored because of insufficient funds. He then sent another check for the same amount, which also failed to clear and was returned. Respondent thereafter paid his client $100 and gave him a note for $750, which was executed the day before the hearing of the complaints now under consideration. Here again is a dispute as to the value of the services rendered.
Relative to the settlement of the estate of Benyi, respondent was appointed executor of the estate which consisted of a few hundred dollars and a house appraised at $4,200. The will authorized the executor to sell the realty. In 1959 he sold it for $5,200 and received a down payment of $1,500 which he deposited in his personal account. The following year the remainder of the purchase price was paid to him and he deposited it in his personal account, but distribution was not made. The church of which he was a member was the sole beneficiary under the will. It employed an attorney to cause distribution. Respondent has accounted in full to the estate but did commingle the estate funds with his own and used the estate's money during the year and a half which intervened between the receipt of the purchase price of the house and distribution to the church.
The board concluded that respondent issued to his client checks which were dishonored for insufficient funds; that he commingled the estate funds with his own and converted them to his own use; and that he had violated the Canons of Professional Ethics.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions the board recommended that respondent be suspended for an indefinite period from the practice of law.
The matter is now before this court for consideration of the report of the board and the objections of the respondent.
Mr. John A. Brown and Mr. James C. Justice, for relator.
Mr. Bernard Feitlinger, for respondent.
This court, from a consideration of the record, is of the opinion that the board was neither in error nor unreasonable in its recommendation. Therefore, the objections are overruled, the report of the board is confirmed, and judgment is rendered suspending respondent for an indefinite period from the practice of law.
Report confirmed and judgment accordingly.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, SMITH, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.
SMITH, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of O'NEILL, J.