Opinion
No. 70-7
Decided March 17, 1971.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disciplinary action — Suspension from practice for indefinite period — Acts warranting — Not arising directly from practice of law — Receiving stolen property — Conversion of personal property.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Respondent was graduated from Salmon P. Chase Law School in 1928. In the same year, he passed the Ohio Bar examination and was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio.
After his admission, from 1928 to 1958, respondent held a series of jobs both in and out of the state of Ohio. His experience in these jobs involved nothing relative to the practice of law.
In 1958, respondent returned to Cincinnati, where he has since resided. Respondent has never engaged in the practice of law except for the handling of an occasional divorce case.
The record herein reveals that respondent was convicted on October 31, 1962, in Cincinnati Municipal Court on a charge of receiving stolen property. He also was convicted on January 15, 1963, in the same court on the charge of converting personal property as a bailee. These convictions remained unknown to the Cincinnati Bar Association until shortly before the complaint herein was filed by that association in 1969.
The record reveals further that respondent had been investigated by the Grievance Committee of the Cincinnati Bar Association in 1965. At that time, it was determined that respondent, while engaged in the second mortgage business during 1964 and 1965, on at least one occasion, participated in a loan which, if repaid according to its terms, would have resulted in a violation of the Ohio usury laws. In an attempt to collect an installment on the loan, respondent wrote a letter to the mortgagor, using the letterhead: "Bernard J. Klatch, Attorney at Law." The record does not indicate that any further action was taken by the Bar Association at that time.
Twice during 1969 respondent was convicted in the Municipal Court for failure to comply with lawful orders of the Cincinnati Building Commissioner directing that repairs be made to certain tenement buildings which he owned. As a result of these convictions, respondent was given jail terms and fined. These convictions were reported in the press, with at least one publication identifying respondent as an attorney.
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline concluded that respondent had violated Canon 29 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Rule XVIII(5) (A) of the Rules of Practice adopted by this court, and recommended that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Effective October 5, 1970, this court adopted the Code of Professional Responsibility. With reference to the provisions of former Canon 29, see Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1, DR 1-102(A) (3), DR 1-102(A) (4), and DR 1-102(A) (6).
Mr. Walter Bortz and Mr. Charles D. Heile, for relator.
Mr. Bernard J. Klatch, in propria persona.
The question presented herein is whether the actions of respondent constituted a violation of Canon 29 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, providing that a lawyer "should strive at all times to uphold the honor and to maintain the dignity of the profession and to improve not only the law but the administration of justice," and of Rule XVIII(5) (A) of the Rules of Practice of this court, which defines "misconduct" as including "the commission or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude."
Respondent's convictions for receiving stolen property and conversion of personal property as a bailee clearly constitute convictions of crimes involving moral turpitude. Rule XVIII(5) (A) is not limited to such crimes committed in one's capacity as an attorney, but includes all such convictions. Further, such conduct when brought to the attention of the public would of necessity tarnish the honor and dignity of the legal profession.
As to the usurious second mortgage transaction, although no criminal penalty exists for the violation of the Ohio usury laws, such conduct does not comport with the standards required of all who possess a license to practice law in this state. The use by respondent of stationary designating himself as an attorney at law, in his attempt to collect on the usurious loan, was an act serving to demean the honor and dignity of the legal profession.
When respondent was convicted of failure to comply with certain building orders, and thereafter press accounts identified him as an attorney sentenced to the workhouse, such conduct also could only serve to degrade the honor and dignity of that profession.
Even though none of the charges against respondent arose directly from the practice of law, when viewed in cumulative perspective, they downgrade the honor and dignity of the legal profession, and undermine the respect for such profession which is essential to the administration of justice.
For the reasons heretofore stated, we conclude that respondent's convictions for receiving stolen property and for conversion of personal property constituted violations of Rule XVIII(5) (A), and that the cumulative conduct of respondent described herein constituted a violation of Canon 29.
Therefore, the report of the board is confirmed and the respondent is suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period.
Judgment accordingly.
O'NEILL, C.J., SCHNEIDER, HERBERT, DUNCAN, CORRIGAN, STERN and LEACH, JJ., concur.