Opinion
D.D. No. 81-14
Decided October 7, 1981.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
This cause arises from a complaint filed with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, on November 5, 1980, by the relator, Ohio State Bar Association, charging respondent, Ronald J. Weisenberger, with misconduct.
Count I charged that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (5) and (6), DR 2-110(A)(1) and (2), DR 7-101(A)(3), and Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Relator claimed that respondent was counsel for Ruth M. Bolin in a divorce proceeding in Athens County, Ohio, and that he and his client were found in a compromising situation by the client's husband on September 15, 1979. As a result of a beating then administered by Mr. Bolin to respondent and Mrs. Bolin, respondent was hospitalized, and Mrs. Bolin's final divorce hearing, scheduled two days later, was continued. Relator charged that Mrs. Bolin's fitness to have custody of her minor children was an issue in the divorce case and that after respondent was released from the hospital, he promptly left the state of Ohio without making arrangements for withdrawal from the case and without taking any steps to protect the rights of Ruth Bolin in the pending divorce case.
Relator charged in Count II that respondent was employed by Lena Ellis in April of 1979 to prepare a quit-claim deed to convey her life estate in certain real estate in Athens County to Stephen E. Patton. The deed was to contain a reversionary clause to take effect upon the breach of certain conditions by Patton, who was Mrs. Ellis' grandson. It was alleged that respondent prepared the deed, which was executed by Mrs. Ellis, but never delivered it to Patton.
Relator claimed that respondent subsequently prepared a similar deed, but without the reversionary clause, and that respondent traced in Mrs. Ellis' signature, notarized the same, and then delivered the deed to the grantee, all without the authority of Lena Ellis. Relator claimed further that the grantee thereafter failed to comply with the desired conditions, which included the exchange of certain personal property, and that Mrs. Ellis had no means to enforce the conditions since they were omitted from the deed upon which respondent signed Lena Ellis' name and which was recorded by Patton. For these acts, relator charged respondent with a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6), and DR 7-101(A)(2) and (3).
Count III charged that respondent became guardian of the person and estate of Homer Ellis on April 17, 1979, in the Probate Court of Athens County; and that respondent was employed in May 1979, by Lena Ellis, Max S. Ellis and Doris J. Ellis to prepare a deed issuing from them and Homer Ellis, husband of Lena Ellis, to Neil T. Pratt for certain real estate in Athens County. Relator claimed that respondent prepared such a deed, which was signed by Max, Doris, Lena and Homer Ellis. Sharon Campbell and respondent witnessed the signing of the deed, which respondent then notarized. Respondent, however, neither filed the deed for record nor delivered it to Pratt.
Relator claimed further that during May 1979, respondent prepared another quit-claim deed for the same property, showing Homer Ellis and Lena Ellis as grantors and Max Ellis as grantee; and that respondent signed his name and the name of Sharon Campbell as witnesses upon the deed, and then notarized the signatures, predating the deed to April 16, 1979. Respondent then filed the deed for record on May 17, 1979. On or about May 11, 1979, respondent prepared a warranty deed for the same acreage, showing Max Ellis and Doris Ellis as grantors and Neil Pratt as grantee. He then signed the names of Max S. Ellis and Doris J. Ellis upon the deed, inserted the name of a witness, signed his own name as a witness, notarized the signatures, and then filed the deed for record on May 22, 1979.
Relator charged that such conduct was a violation of DR 1-101(A)(4), (5) and (6) and DR 7-101(A)(2) and (3).
Relator charged in Count IV that on September 5, 1979, the children of Homer Ellis applied to the Probate Court for respondent's removal as guardian, in response to which, on September 27, 1979, respondent tendered his resignation and filed an inventory. On the same day, respondent filed his account, to which exceptions were taken by the children of his ward. At the subsequent probate hearing on April 3, 1980, the court found that personal property in the amount of $2,284 had not been procured by respondent and it rendered a judgment accordingly. As a result, a claim was made against respondent's bond as guardian, and payment was made by the bonding company to the guardianship. Relator claimed that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6), DR 6-101(A)(3) and DR 7-101(A)(1), (2) and (3), as a result of such conduct.
Respondent was duly served with a copy of the complaint herein. A hearing was held before a panel of the board of commissioners on April 28, 1981, in Columbus. Respondent did not appear, although he had notice and acknowledged the same by correspondence. Respondent asked that the matter proceed upon his answer and affidavit which were before the board. He presently resides and works as a sales representative in Corpus Christi, Texas.
The board found, as to Count I, that respondent arranged for Mrs. Bolin's continued representation by other members of his law firm, and that the divorce eventually concluded with her obtaining custody of her children. Count I was dismissed, then, for failure of proof.
As to Count II, the board found that respondent was caught in the middle of an Ellis family feud and "was doing what he could to quiet the waters" when he "attempted to take a shortcut in signing Lena Ellis' name to a deed and then compounded the indiscretion by notarizing the same and delivering it to the grantee." The board found that such conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4).
The board found, as to Count III, that "once respondent realized there would be a potential cloud on that title because Homer Ellis' name appeared on the deed individually rather than through the guardianship under which he was placed, that perhaps he needed a shortcut. It would then appear that since the quit-claim deed to which respondent signed Homer and Lena Ellis' names was dated one day prior to respondent's guardianship of Homer Ellis, it was designed to clear the title by indirection rather than going through probate court to seek authorization to make the conveyance as guardian of Homer Ellis." The board found "no ulterior motives on the part of respondent other than to try to accomplish the desires of the clients," but that he did it the wrong way. The board found that such conduct, nonetheless, violated DR 1-102(A)(4).
As to Count IV, the board found that the personal property unaccounted for by respondent "is the same personal property which was to have been exchanged for Lena Ellis' conveyance of her life estate" by Stephen Patton but which apparently was never returned by him. As such, the board found a failure of proof and dismissed Count IV.
The board concluded, therefore, that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) in two separate counts and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio for a period of one year.
Mr. Albert L. Bell, Mr. John R. Welch, Mr. Keith McNamara and Mr. David E. Railsback, for relator.
The evidence indicates that, with respect to Counts II and III, respondent did not act maliciously or for personal gain. However, it is a fundamental tenet of the professional responsibility of a lawyer "that he should maintain a degree of personal and professional integrity that meets the highest standard. The integrity of the profession can be maintained only if the conduct of the individual attorney is above reproach." Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 77, 81.
After an examination and review of the record in this cause, this court concurs with the findings of fact and the recommendation of the board of commissioners, and it is hereby ordered that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and KRUPANSKY, JJ., concur.