Opinion
D.D. No. 40
Decided March 13, 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, Isadore L. Margulis, charging him with misconduct in the violation of certain penal laws of Ohio and the Canons of Professional Ethics.
A hearing was had before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The board found that respondent was duly admitted to the Bar of Ohio in 1927 and has been continuously in the private practice of law since that time; that on July 3, 1961, respondent received $1,517.90 in cash in settlement of a case for a client; that an entry of dismissal was approved by opposing counsel on the same day and was left with respondent; that on the same day the sum of $1,460 was deposited in a bank in his wife's account; that on July 21 respondent accounted to the client for the money collected by withholding a fee of 25 per cent and remitting to the client $1,114.15; that the balance in respondent's wife's checking account fell below the amount due the client on July 12, and so remained until July 17; that numerous checks against the account were honored by the bank from July 3 to July 21; that on July 10 the client inquired about the money and respondent advised her that there was nothing to worry about, that the case had not been dismissed and that the money was in both names and neither one could take it out without the other's signature; that disbursement was made on July 21, after the assignment commissioner had been contacted by the client and had inquired of respondent concerning the dismissal entry which had not been filed; and that on July 24 respondent paid to the client $66 as a refund on the retainer fee and security for costs. The board concluded that by such conduct respondent was guilty of misconduct in violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
The board found further that respondent was appointed administrator of an estate; that the inventory was filed on August 29, 1957, and approved on September 30; that on September 19, 1957, respondent made application, under oath, for administrator and attorney fees in the total sum of $1,500, and on the same day the court allowed $270 for administrator fees and $1,230 for attorney fees; that the application stated that the administrator had distributed personal property amounting to more than $7,390 and real estate amounting to $36,000, when in fact no personal or real property had yet been distributed; and that respondent filed a petition to sell real property of the estate on September 6, 1960, almost three years after he stated that distribution of the real property had been made. The board concluded that such conduct was in violation of the oath of office of an attorney and the Canons of Professional Ethics.
The board found further that the schedule of debts of such estate was filed by respondent on January 8, 1958; and that the claim of a medical clinic was shown on the schedule of debts as presented on August 1, 1957, whereas the Probate Court's opinion dated May 13, 1960, indicates that respondent testified in the Probate Court proceeding that the claim was not presented within the statutory time of four months, and the claimant did not petition the court for authority to present its claim as required by statute. The board concluded that the respondent made a misstatement of fact in his schedule of debts, in violation of the oath of office of an attorney and the Canons of Professional Ethics.
The board found further that respondent maintained a checking account for the estate he represented as administrator, made certain deposits and wrote certain checks against the account. The exhibits show that $1,000 was charged against the account on September 20, 1957, and that $500 was so charged on August 26. Respondent's first partial account shows that $1,500 in attorney fees and administrative fees was paid on September 19, and it also accounts for checks received from three insurance companies, which should have been paid directly to the beneficiaries named in the policies. The amended first account, filed October 5, 1961, excludes the insurance-policy items as receipts and does not show the $1,500 as having been paid to respondent for administrator and attorney fees. The amended first account was sworn to by respondent on October 4, 1961, and shows a balance due the estate of $1,833.85. The bank records show a balance of $2,948.18 on October 2, 1961, and on October 9 a balance of $2,837.23. The board found further that respondent did not account for the receipts and expenditures by him as administrator as required by statute; that the court was concerned over the mismanagement of the estate and the failure to conform to the requests and orders of the Probate Court; and that respondent either did not know how to proceed with the administration of the estate or intentionally disregarded his duties as administrator and attorney and the requests and orders of the court.
The board concluded that the respondent failed to account for his trust as required by Section 2109.30, Revised Code, in violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics and his oath of office as attorney.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions, the board recommended that respondent should 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. Russel S. Welch, Mr. Alan Norris and Mr. James C. Justice, for relator.
Mr. Isadore L. Margulis, in propria persona.
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 to the recommendation of the board 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, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.