Opinion
D.D. No. 76-15
Decided February 23, 1977.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Acts warranting indefinite suspension — Mitigating circumstances.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Respondent, Robert E. Renshaw, has been a member of the Ohio Bar since 1957, and has been engaged in private practice since 1959, in and around Clark County.
In a complaint filed with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, the Ohio State Bar Association, relator, alleges that respondent was guilty of three separate counts of misconduct.
Count I alleges that respondent was appointed executor of the estate of Robert Mendenhall, and that respondent withdrew $2,000 from his fiduciary account as executor and used such funds to pay his personal creditors. The count alleges further that respondent withdrew the amounts of $1,500 and $160 from his fiduciary account to pay distributive heirs of a different estate. Relator also complains that respondent neglected and refused to complete the administration of the estate.
Count II alleges that respondent was employed by Anthony J. Ross to represent him in a divorce proceeding, and that Ross delivered to respondent $2,000 in cash to be paid to Mrs. Ross in settling certain financial interests. Numerous demands were made on respondent by Ross, his wife, and her attorney to deliver the $2,000 to Mrs. Ross, but respondent refused to account for or to pay over the funds. About six weeks after he received the money, respondent paid Mrs. Ross $1,255.09, leaving $744.91 not accounted for as of February 13, 1975.
Count III alleges that respondent neglected numerous estates or guardianships to which he was appointed fiduciary or attorney, or both.
Relator alleges that respondent violated numerous specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The board concluded that the answer filed by the respondent, the stipulations entered into, the exhibits, and the testimony, including that of the respondent, sustained the first count of the relator's complaint. The board thus found that the respondent violated DR 1-102(A) (4), (5) and (6), DR 6-101(A) (3), and DR 9-102(B) (3) and (4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Further, as set forth in Count II of relator's complaint, the board found that respondent had also violated DR 1-102(A) (3), (4) and (6), DR 7-101(A) (2) and (3), and DR 9-102(A) and (B) (3) and (4). Although the board found that there were violations as set forth in Count III, it concluded that they were not as numerous as alleged in relator's complaint, and, under those circumstances, the board found that respondent violated Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and DR 6-101(A) (3) and DR 9-102(B) (3) and (4).
The board found that restitution had been fully made before the hearing and that mitigating circumstances existed and thus recommended respondent's indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
Mr. Albert L. Bell, Mr. Kenneth M. Barnes, Mr. John R. Welch, Mr. John L. Beckley and Mr. James J. Gilvary, for relator.
Mr. Robert E. Renshaw, pro se.
Upon examination of the record of the hearing, we find that the violations with which respondent was ultimately charged were accurate and substantiated. We agree with the board's conclusion that there were mitigating circumstances.
The following facts were revealed at the hearing before the board:
(1) Respondent voluntarily returned approximately one-half of his fee as a fiduciary on the Mendenhall estate because of the delayed closing of the estate. Apparently, this refund was to compensate Esther Holland, sole beneficiary of the estate, for lost interest that could have been earned upon investment.
(2) The $744.91 that relator alleged in Count II of its complaint as "not accounted for as of February 13, 1975" was paid by respondent to Master Charge on an account of Mr. Ross. According to respondent's testimony before the board, Mrs. Ross had used this account to buy gifts for her boyfriend, and respondent was directed by Mr. Ross to make certain that the account was paid out of the $2,000 that he had previously given to respondent to be paid to Mrs. Ross in settlement. Further, in this matter, respondent had paid some court costs out of his own pocket.
(3) Respondent testified he was not the fiduciary in over 80 percent of the estates that relator alleged were neglected by respondent, and testified further that the fiduciaries of these estates and other "various people" were uncooperative or difficult to locate.
(4) Respondent was very cooperative with counsel for the relator and with the board.
We accept the board's recommendation and the respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.