Opinion
D.D. No. 79-8
Decided July 18, 1979.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
This cause came on for hearing before the duly appointed hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline pursuant to a complaint by the relator, Columbus Bar Association, charging respondent, H. Wesley Robinson, with misconduct.
It was stipulated by respondent and relator that, on or about October 5, 1977, respondent was employed by Marie Losacco and received funds from her in the sum of $22,321.43 for the purpose of satisfying and discharging her home mortgage with Buckeye Federal Savings Loan; that respondent received said funds and deposited the same in his trust account; that, on or about October 25, 1977, respondent drew a check on his trust account to pay off such mortgage and that such check was returned for insufficient funds; that, on or about November 10, 1977, respondent issued another check drawn on the First National Bank of Cincinnati payable to Buckeye Federal to pay off such mortgage and that, too, was returned for insufficient funds; that, early in December 1977, Mrs. Losacco received her cancelled mortgage from Buckeye Federal Savings Loan, but such release was expunged by affidavit of the mortgagee dated December 15, 1977, and Mrs. Losacco was informed by the mortgagee that her mortgage was three months in arrears; that, on December 21, 1977, said mortgage was finally satisfied by a certified check issued by respondent and drawn on the Huntington National Bank of Columbus, Ohio, and payable to Buckeye Federal Savings Loan.
Respondent testified that, between October 5, 1977, and October 20, 1977, he had used his client's funds to make a down-payment on an office building, and that, when the financing on the office building was delayed, he was unable to produce sufficient cash to satisfy the mortgage as he had been instructed to do.
Respondent offered in evidence an exhibit demonstrating that, as of the first day of October 1977, he had a net worth of approximately $600,000 and testified that the client suffered no financial loss, which was undisputed.
By reason of the foregoing, the board concluded that respondent has violated (a) DR 7-101(A)(2), by intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment for professional services with a client; (b) DR 6-101(A)(3), in neglecting a matter entrusted to him; (c) DR 1-102(A)(1) and (6), by violating a disciplinary rule and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law; and (d) DR 9-102, by disbursing from his trust account a client's funds for respondent's private business dealings.
DR 7-101 reads, in pertinent part:
"(A) A lawyer shall not intentionally:
"* * *
"(2) Fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services, but he may withdraw as permitted under DR 2-110, DR 5-102 and DR 5-105."
DR 6-101 reads, in pertinent part:
"(A) A lawyer shall not:
"* * *
"(3) Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him."
DR 1-102 reads, in pertinent part:
"(A) A lawyer shall not:
"(1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule.
"* * *
"(6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
DR 9-102 reads:
"(A) All funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law firm, other than advances for costs and expenses, shall be deposited in one or more identifiable bank accounts maintained in the state in which the law office is situated and no funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm shall be deposited therein except as follows:
"(1) Funds reasonably sufficient to pay bank charges may be deposited therein.
"(2) Funds belonging in part to a client and in part presently or potentially to the lawyer or law firm must be deposited therein, but the portion belonging to the lawyer or law firm may be withdrawn when due unless the right of the lawyer or law firm to receive it is disputed by the client, in which event the disputed portion shall not be withdrawn until the dispute is finally resolved.
"(B) A lawyer shall:
"(1) Promptly notify a client of the receipt of his funds, securities, or other properties.
"(2) Identify and label securities and properties of a client promptly upon receipt and place them in a safe deposit box or other place of safekeeping as soon as practicable.
"(3) Maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his client regarding them.
"(4) Promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by a client the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive."
The board of commissioners recommended that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Mr. R. Douglas Wrightsel, Mr. Benjamin L. Zox and Ms. Mary Ellen Fairfield, for relator.
Mr. Paul L. Thompson, for respondent.
"One of the fundamental tenets of the professional responsibility of a lawyer is that he should maintain a degree of personal and professional integrity that meets the highest standard. The integrity of the profession can be maintained only if the conduct of the individual attorney is above reproach. * * *" Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 77, 81.
After an examination and review of the record in this cause, this court concurs with the findings of fact and recommendation of the board of commissioners, and respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.