Summary
In Signer, supra, this court held that if the Kentucky Bar Association had no knowledge of the disbarment proceedings in Ohio or was unaware of some substantial element of it, "public protection against a potential vulture justifies disbarment if it be fairly determined after a due process hearing that the conduct was such that, if known at the time, it would have certainly resulted in a denial of his [Signer's] application for admission to the bar."
Summary of this case from Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. SignerOpinion
D.D. No. 72-1
Decided June 28, 1972.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Acts warranting permanent disbarment.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Respondent herein, Burton R. Signer, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio by examination on April 23, 1958. He engaged in the practice in Cincinnati.
On October 23, 1970, pursuant to Rule XVIII of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, the Grievance Committee of the Cincinnati Bar Association filed a complaint and certificate against respondent, alleging nine instances of misconduct contrary to the Canons of Professional Ethics in force at the times the alleged events occurred.
Answer was duly filed to the complaint and a panel of three commissioners of the board was designated to conduct a formal hearing on the complaint under Rule XVIII, Section (5) (a). The matter was heard on June 3rd through June 5th, 1971. Of the nine counts originally asserted against the respondent five were dismissed. The four remaining involved respondent's alleged misconduct in his capacity as officer, director, stockholder and attorney for Ringgold Building and Loan Company.
These were as follows:
Count No. 3. That in connection with the following mortgage loans of Ringgold Building and Loan Company and on the dates specified, namely:
No. 707 1/23/65 No. 750 3/6/65 No. 708 1/23/65 No. 756 3/25/65 No. 715 1/28/65 No. 762 3/25/65 No. 716 1/28/65 No. 763 3/25/65 No. 717 1/28/65 No. 773 4/29/65 No. 722 2/13/65 No. 774 4/29/65 No. 724 2/13/65 No. 775 4/29/65 No. 746 3/6/65 No. 776 4/29/65 No. 747 3/6/65 No. 777 4/29/65 No. 748 3/6/65 No. 798 6/18/65 No. 749 3/6/65
the said Burton R. Signer did arrange for or permit Ringgold Building and Loan Company to advance monies without adequate security for the purpose of purchasing debentures of G.G.S., Inc., a corporation in which the said Burton R. Signer was a shareholder, officer, director and had a financial interest, and that such action was a detriment to Ringgold Building and Loan Company and violated Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Rule XIX, Section 4 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Count No. 5. That on January 23, 1965, Burton R. Signer was the owner of real property located at 427 Plum Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, for which he paid $21,000 on October 2, 1964, and that on or prior to January 23, 1965, the said Burton R. Signer induced one Jerome Richman to ostensibly purchase said property from him and arranged a mortgage loan from Ringgold Building and Loan Company in the amount of $48,500, an amount substantially in excess of the market value of said real estate, with the proceeds of said loan in excess of an existing mortgage being paid over to the said Burton R. Signer for his personal use and benefit; that the said ostensible sale to Jerome Richman was in fact a sham because the said Burton R. Signer had agreed with Jerome Richman to take back from Richman the said parcel of real estate and to have cancelled any obligation of Richman to the said Ringgold Building and Loan Company; that the said Burton R. Signer did in fact reacquire the said property on December 31, 1965, and that all of said acts are in violation of Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
Count No. 6. That on September 23, 1965, Burton R. Signer, as president and attorney for Ringgold Building and Loan Company, directed a communication to the Superintendent of Building and Loan Associations of Ohio setting forth rental income on property at 7509 Reading Road, Cincinnati, Ohio, for the purpose of securing from said superintendent an approval for the sale of said property to Ringgold Building and Loan Company by a group of persons including Burton R. Signer himself and other persons related to him; that information supplied to the Superintendent of Building and Loans was false in that such rentals were overstated and involved in some instances leases which were nonexistent or sham; that said action is a violation of Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
Count No. 7. That on separate occasions in 1965, to wit, July 19 and September 24, Burton R. Signer caused the Ringgold Building and Loan Company to advance to him sums of money aggregating $75,000 which were deposited by the said Burton R. Signer to his own account; that said funds advanced by Ringgold Building and Loan Company were commingled by the said Burton R. Signer with his own funds or the funds of other persons, and as so commingled, were used by the said Burton R. Signer for purposes unrelated to the Ringgold Building and Loan Company and constituted a conversion of the monies of Burton R. Signer's client; that such funds were subsequently repaid but without interest and without at any time having been employed for the purposes of the Ringgold Building and Loan Company; that said action is a violation of Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found respondent, Burton R. Signer, guilty as charged in counts 3, 5, 6 and 7 and thereby guilty of misconduct as defined in Section (5)(a) of Rule XVIII and Section 4 of Rule XIX of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, all in violation of Canons 6, 11, 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
The board recommended that respondent, Burton R. Signer, be permanently disbarred from the practice of law, as provided in Section (6)(a) of Rule XVIII of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Mr. John L. Muething and Mr. Kenneth J. Schneider, for relator.
Mr. Stanley Goodman, for respondent.
We have examined the record of the testimony taken at the hearing before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, with the exhibits presented by both relator and respondent, together with a careful analysis of such evidence as to each count passed upon by the board, and we agree that the record amply supports the findings of the board that respondent, Burton R. Signer, is guilty as charged in counts 3, 5, 6 and 7, and thereby is guilty of misconduct as defined in Section (5)(a) of Rule XVIII of the Rules of Practice of this court, all in violation of Canons 6, 11, 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
We affirm these findings of the board and overrule respondent's objections thereto.
We likewise agree with the recommendation of the board that respondent, Burton R. Signer, be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio, and such recommendation is confirmed. Objection of respondent to this recommendation is overruled.
Report confirmed and judgment accordingly.
O'NEILL, C.J., PUTMAN, HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, LEACH and BROWN, JJ., concur.
PUTMAN, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting for SCHNEIDER, J.