Opinion
No. 91-1769
Submitted October 9, 1991 —
Decided December 18, 1991.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 90-21.
On February 27, 1990, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint against respondent, John J. Burkhart, charging him with three counts of misconduct. Each count stems from respondent's actions in handling a probate estate. Count I charged that respondent violated DR 2-106(A) (charging or collecting an illegal fee) by paying attorney fees to himself prior to filing an account or a motion or application for attorney fees. Count II charged that respondent violated DR 2-106(A) (charging excessive fees) by charging a legal fee of $7,500 for services partially rendered. Count III charged that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him) by making late filings with the probate court and by handling other estate matters in an untimely manner. On March 13, 1990, respondent filed his answer in which he admitted the factual allegations of the complaint, but denied intentional misconduct.
On July 27, 1990, the parties submitted stipulations of fact that respondent wrote checks to himself from estate funds prior to filing a motion for attorney fees, that respondent had not performed sufficient work on an hourly basis to justify his total fees, that respondent filed an inventory of the estate approximately four months late, and that respondent handled other estate matters in an untimely manner.
By filing of August 2, 1990, respondent admitted the misconduct as set forth in the complaint and stipulation, and further admitted that his misconduct constituted violations of DR 2-106(A) and 6-101(A)(3). The parties agreed to waive a hearing and to proceed on the basis of the pleadings, the stipulation, and the admission. They also agreed on a recommendation that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months, followed by six months' probation.
The panel agreed to accept the admission and waiver and, based thereon, found that respondent had violated DR 2-106(A) and 6-101(A)(3). The panel recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand and six months' probation. The board adopted the panel's findings, but recommended that the sanction be limited to a public reprimand.
J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, for relator.
Spengler, Nathanson, Heyman, McCarthy Durfee and Frank T. Pizza, for respondent.
We find that respondent committed the misconduct found by the board and concur with its recommendation. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.