Opinion
D.D. No. 76-2
Decided June 16, 1976.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disbarment — Acts warranting — Impropriety in handling estates.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Respondent, Michael A. Lacinak, was admitted to the Bar of Ohio by examination on August 21, 1952. Since that time he has practiced law in Cincinnati. For part of that period he practiced with his father, also an attorney, now deceased.
In 1975, the Cincinnati Bar Association filed charges in five counts against respondent with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline for alleged violations of certain canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The first count had to do with various acts of impropriety in connection with a guardianship estate in which respondent was appointed guardian of an incompetent in the Probate Court of Hamilton County. He resigned before the estate was administered, but his final account showed some irregularities, including an expenditure of $10,100 to himself as guardian and in payment of attorney fees for which there was no authorization given by the court. After a hearing, the court disallowed any guardian or attorney fees by reason of the negligent handling of the estate and ordered reimbursement of the sum of $10,100 withdrawn without authority. Because of other failures pointed out by the Probate Court, it found further that the account as filed by respondent Lacinak is disapproved to the extent that there is due the estate from the resigned guardian the sum of $16,013.09. Mr. Lacinak's surety was ordered to pay this sum. Payment by Mr. Lacinak has never been made to anybody.
The second count dealt with an estate of a decedent in which respondent, having collected a court costs advance, failed to begin administration of the estate. Respondent, after presenting the will for probate, took no further steps toward the administration of that estate.
In the third and fourth counts, respondent is alleged to have signed the name of his deceased father in final accounts filed in Probate Court.
As to the fifth count, respondent similarly failed to file any inventory or any accounting whatsoever for the period respondent acted as a guardian of the estate of Lillian Medley.
Respondent's answer essentially admitted all the charges. Respondent did present some evidence, including that of a psychiatrist. The latter testified that, in his opinion, respondent was not mentally ill, as defined in R.C. 5122.01(A), and that he was responsible for his actions and his behavior although he had some problems related to alcoholism and instability.
The respondent testified in some detail about all the counts. Essentially, he again admitted them. He did state that he felt he was entitled to the rather substantial fee as detailed in the first count, but admitted no application was made, nor was a fee schedule or any other measuring standard employed to determine the fee. He did not believe it was fraudulent for him to have forged his father's name (count three and count four) and then to have notarized it. Again, in count five, no application for fees was made and respondent offered no clear reason for his conduct. Regarding count two, there was no real explanation offered. Overall, respondent gave the impression and, in fact, conceded that he had just not paid attention to current matters and was extremely dilatory in the handling of these cases.
The panel found from the pleadings, stipulations, exhibits and evidence the following:
"COUNT ONE"Respondent has violated the following codes and rules governing the Bar of Ohio: Canon 1, DR 1-102 of the present Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (then in effect until October 5, 1970); Canon 6, DR 6-101 of the present Code of Professional Responsibility and Canon 29 of the Code of Professional Ethics (then in effect until October 5, 1970); Canon 9, DR 9-102 of the present Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons 11, 29 and 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (then in effect until October 5, 1970).
"COUNT TWO"Respondent has violated the following codes and rules governing the Bar of Ohio: Canon 1, DR 1-102 of the present Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (then in effect until October 5, 1970); Canon 6, DR 6-101 of the present Code of Professional Responsibility; and Canon 29 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (then in effect until October 5, 1970).
"COUNT THREE"Respondent has violated the following codes and rules governing the Bar of Ohio: Canon 1, DR 1-102 of the present Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (then in effect until October 5, 1970); Canon 6, DR 6-101 of the present Code of Professional Responsibility and Canon 29 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (then in effect until October 5, 1970); Canon 9, DR 9-102 of the present Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons 11, 29 and 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (then in effect until October 5, 1970).
"COUNT FOUR"Respondent has violated the following codes and rules governing the Bar of Ohio: Canon 1, DR 1-102 of the present Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (then in effect until October 5, 1970); Canon 6, DR 6-101 of the present Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 29 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (then in effect until October 5, 1970).
"COUNT FIVE"Respondent has violated the following codes and rules governing the Bar of Ohio: Canon 1, DR 1-102 of the present Code of Professional Responsibility; Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (then in effect until October 5, 1970); Canon 6, DR 6-101 of the present Code of Professional Responsibility; Canon 29 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (then in effect until October 5, 1970); Canon 9, DR 9-102 of the present Code of Professional Responsibility; Canons 11, 29 and 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (then in effect until October 5, 1970)."
The board of commissioners adopted the finding of the hearing panel.
Mr. Thomas A. Brennan, Mr. John J. Getgey, Jr., and Mr. D. Michael Poast, for relator.
Mr. Maury M. Tepper, for respondent.
Upon a careful review of the findings of fact of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, as reflected by the record, this court is in full agreement that such findings of fact are justified by the record. Accordingly, it is the order of this court that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio as provided in Gov. R. V(6) (a).
Judgment accordingly.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.