Opinion
No. 89-1555
Submitted July 31, 1990 —
Decided December 12, 1990.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Convictions for estate tax evasion and filing a false estate tax return.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 88-36.
On October 9, 1985, respondent, Elaine R. Crane, a former judge of the Willoughby Municipal Court, was indicted on federal charges of estate tax evasion and filing a false estate tax return, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, case No. CR-85-224. She was convicted of the charges, fined $10,000, and placed on probation for three years. An initial order that respondent permanently surrender her license to practice law was subsequently modified to one requiring her to surrender her license for the full period of her probation.
On July 8, 1986, we ordered respondent indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for conviction of a felony. On July 12, 1988, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint against respondent charging four violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility in two counts. The hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court considered the matter without formal hearing on stipulations of fact and exhibits and an affidavit submitted by the parties.
Count I of the complaint charged respondent with violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) (conduct involving moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), as evidenced by her federal convictions.
Count II of the complaint charged that respondent's conduct as executrix of the estate of her deceased father, Milton A. Roemisch, in failing to account for substantial assets over an extensive period, violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
The stipulations indicate that respondent pled not guilty to the federal charges, but was convicted on June 13, 1986 of estate tax evasion in violation of Section 7201, Title 26, U.S. Code, and filing false estate tax returns in violation of Section 7206(1), Title 26, U.S. Code, regarding the estate of respondent's deceased father. Evidence before the court indicated a substantial amount of unreported estate assets and a number of unallowable deductions. Respondent appealed her convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed.
The stipulations also state that respondent and respondent's mother, Elizabeth Roemisch, were the only people to inherit from the estate of Milton A. Roemisch; that, on October 24, 1978, respondent was appointed executrix of the Roemisch estate and trustee of two trusts of which Elizabeth Roemisch and respondent were beneficiaries; that respondent requested and received four extensions for filing the inventory and appraisal for the estate, which was finally accomplished on July 6, 1979; and that the inventory and appraisal indicated that the total value of the estate was $5,073,226.31.
Respondent subsequently waived a partial accounting on September 27, 1979, a second partial accounting on March 3, 1982, and a third partial accounting on July 14, 1983. After receiving numerous extensions, she filed three corrected inventory and appraisals on August 3, 1984, July 16, 1985, and August 21, 1985, respectively. The August 3, 1984 inventory and appraisal listed the value of the estate at $6,901,630.62, a substantial increase over the value in the 1979 inventory and appraisal. The July 16, 1985 and August 21, 1985 corrections valued the estate at $6,867,889.87 and $6,874,125.37, respectively.
On June 30, 1986, the probate court, learning of the pending tax evasion case, appointed an investigator sua sponte to review the administration of the estate and trusts and report his findings to the court. On August 29, 1986, the investigator submitted to the court a List of Additional Assets to respondent's inventory and appraisal of August 3, 1984, which totaled $2,302,301.61.
In the stipulations of fact and in her affidavit, respondent admitted that her conduct, both as to the federal convictions and with respect to her father's estate, violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5).
The hearing panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with no credit for the time already suspended. The board adopted the panel's findings and its recommendations and recommended that costs be taxed to respondent.
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Mark H. Aultman, for relator.
Elaine R. Crane, pro se.
We find respondent's conduct to be a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5) and concur in the recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio, without credit for the time already suspended. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.