ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 90-65.

Relator, Mahoning County Bar Association, filed a forty-four-count amended complaint charging respondent, Albert L. Strobel, Attorney Registration No. 0033859, of Poland, Ohio, with numerous violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The matter was heard before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") on June 24, 1992. At the hearing, the parties stipulated to the facts regarding twenty counts, and all remaining counts were dismissed save Count Eleven.

Counts One and Two involved Strobel's misconduct in handling a personal injury case for Malin Peters. Without Peters' authorization, Strobel negotiated a $15,000 settlement and endorsed Peters' name to the check. Strobel then gave Peters $5,000 and told him that all bills incurred as a result of the accident would be paid from the remaining $10,000. However, Peters later found that Strobel had failed to pay certain medical bills. After Peters complained, Strobel paid the outstanding bills and refunded his fee. Strobel testified that Peters' sister had authorized him to settle the case and endorse Peters' name to the settlement check, Peters being abroad on military duty at the time. The panel found that Strobel violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

Count Eighteen involved misuse of trust funds. Strobel got into financial trouble during the late 1980s. To save his bank account from attachment, he closed it and deposited the money in his client trust account. He then drew on the trust account to pay his secretary's salary and other business expenses. Strobel claimed that he did not use client funds for these purposes and denied that the misuse of funds constituted a fraud on his creditors. However, the panel found that he violated DR 9-102(B)(2) (failure to place client property in safekeeping) and (B)(3) (failure to maintain complete records and render appropriate accounts of client funds in lawyer's possession).

With respect to Counts Four and Five, Strobel stipulated that on May 5, 1988, John and Brian Vogel retained him to represent them after the Small Business Administration ("SBA") obtained a foreclosure order against them. Strobel subsequently assured the Vogels that he had corresponded with the SBA. This was not true, however, and the SBA executed on the Vogels' business and property in May 1989. Strobel stipulated to a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter), and the panel also found a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).

Count Thirty-seven arose from Strobel's representation of Danny Rispinto, who paid Strobel a $275 retainer to represent him in a contract action. Strobel never filed Rispinto's complaint or pursued the action. Moreover, Strobel told Rispinto that he had settled the case, but he never paid Rispinto any of the proceeds of this alleged settlement. The panel found that Strobel violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out contract of professional employment).

Count Eleven, the only count neither stipulated to nor dismissed, arose from Strobel's representation of Alfonso and Debby Gutierrez, who hired Strobel to file their Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy court scheduled a hearing, and Strobel's office notified Mr. and Mrs. Gutierrez of the hearing's date, time, and place; however, Strobel himself never showed up. Strobel testified that he was occupied across the hall in another bankruptcy hearing. He also said that, in an uncomplicated Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, it is not unusual for the trustee to examine the debtor without counsel. After the hearing, Mrs. Gutierrez tried "fifteen to twenty" times to contact Strobel by telephone, but was unable to reach him.

As part of the bankruptcy matter, Mr. and Mrs. Gutierrez wished to reaffirm ( i.e., continue paying) their car loan from Society Bank. They mentioned this at the bankruptcy hearing, and the bank's representative told them the loan could be reaffirmed as soon as Strobel sent the bank the necessary papers. Mrs. Gutierrez subsequently called the bank several times; she was told that the bank was trying to get in touch with Strobel, but could not find him. Eventually, the bank gave up on Strobel, prepared the papers itself, and sent them to Mr. and Mrs. Gutierrez. Strobel later claimed that he had "negotiated the reaffirmation"; his testimony also seemed to suggest that he sent some forms for the bank to prepare and mail to his clients. The board found Strobel guilty of violating DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2).

Counts Seven, Ten, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Twenty, Twenty-three, Twenty-five, Twenty-eight, Thirty, Thirty-eight, and Forty-one present similar facts. In each case, Strobel was retained to pursue a legal action but failed to do so, in most cases failing also to refund the retainer. At least one of these clients, Thomas Clay (Count Twenty), suffered loss due to Strobel's neglect. In Clay's case, Strobel failed to attend a hearing, even though notice was sent to his office; Strobel blamed his office for failing to tell him about the hearing. On each of these charges, the panel found that Strobel violated DR 6-101(A)(3); on all but Count Twenty-eight, the panel also found violations of DR 7-101(A)(2).

Finally, with respect to Counts Forty-three and Forty-four, Strobel stipulated that he failed to cooperate with relator's investigations of numerous complaints against him. The panel found that Strobel violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law), 2-110 (withdrawal from employment without protecting clients), and Gov.Bar R. V(5)(a), now Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation).

Strobel testified that stress resulting from personal, financial, and health problems caused him to abandon his practice as abruptly as he did. Among other things, Strobel testified that his ex-wife denied him visits with his daughters and falsely accused him of molesting them. He claimed a domestic relations judge ordered him to pay child support three times greater than the statutory guidelines prescribed. Moreover, Strobel's ex-wife defaulted on business debts Strobel had co-signed, forcing Strobel into bankruptcy; this also ruined his bankruptcy practice, Strobel said, since clients were reluctant to entrust their bankruptcies to a fellow bankrupt. Strobel's ex-wife also tried to have him jailed for nonsupport, and "I [Strobel] was hiding out from the sheriff until [I] got the money put together." Finally, Strobel testified that he and his parents were getting threats on his life from a fellow attorney.

Strobel conceded "poor judgment," promised full restitution to anyone injured by his misconduct, and disclaimed any intent to engage in private practice in the future. Strobel also offered explanations for some of the complaints against him; in one case, however, his explanation was inconsistent with the facts he had stipulated to.

A majority of the panel found Strobel's testimony incredible. The panel majority pointed out that Strobel accepted a responsible position as a contract administrator with a Pennsylvania concern just days after stress allegedly drove him from his law practice. The majority also found that Strobel lacked remorse and demonstrated no acceptance of responsibility. Moreover, Strobel did not have a clean record. See Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Strobel (1989), 41 Ohio St.3d 611, 535 N.E.2d 302 (public reprimand). By a two-to-one vote, the panel recommended Strobel's disbarment. The board adopted the panel's findings and recommendation.