Opinion
No. 90-2538
Submitted February 13, 1991 —
Decided April 24, 1991.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Failure to cooperate in investigation of misappropriation-of-funds charge.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 89-04.
In an amended complaint filed March 1, 1989, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, charged that respondent, John D. Dyck, had violated DR 1-102(A)(1) (violating a Disciplinary Rule); 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him); 9-102(A) (failing to properly account for fiduciary funds); and 9-102(B)(3) (failing to file a timely account as required by probate court). A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court held a default hearing on October 26, 1990. Although served with various notices of the complaint and the hearing, respondent did not answer the complaint, nor did he appear at the hearing either in person or by counsel.
The evidence at the hearing established that respondent had been surcharged by the Cuyahoga County Probate Court for misappropriation of $3,792.27 from the estate of Helen E. Griese and removed as executor. The Cuyahoga County Grand Jury also indicted respondent for this misappropriation of funds. Subsequently, respondent through counsel presented evidence to the probate court. A proper accounting was filed, and the probate court made a finding of no misappropriation. Criminal charges were dismissed on March 31, 1989.
After the hearing, the panel concluded that no evidence had been presented sufficient to substantiate violations of the Disciplinary Rules as they relate to misappropriation of funds. However, the panel concluded that "[r]espondent has utterly failed to cooperate with the Bar Association in any respect as it relates to the filing of these charges. Hence, he has violated Governing Bar Rule V, Section 5." The panel recommended that respondent be given a public reprimand. The board adopted the panel's findings and its recommendation, and further recommended that costs be taxed to respondent.
William T. Guarnieri, for relator.
We agree with the board's findings and its recommendation. Thus, we hereby publicly reprimand respondent for having violated Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a). Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.