From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Miller

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jul 26, 1989
541 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio 1989)

Opinion

No. 89-394

Submitted May 10, 1989 —

Decided July 26, 1989.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Discussing terms of will with third party, destroying will and then administering estate in accordance with the terms of a revoked will.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 88-29.

In a complaint filed on June 22, 1988, relator, Stark County Bar Association, charged that the respondent, Wilford R. Miller, had violated DR 1-102 (misconduct), 4-101 (preservation of confidences and secrets of a client), 7-101 (representing a client zealously), and 7-102 (representing a client within the bounds of the law).

The respondent answered the complaint on July 15, 1988. He admitted the principal factual allegations of the complaint, but denied that his conduct violated the Disciplinary Rules. The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") on September 23, 1988. Respondent appeared at that proceeding. The facts were stipulated.

The evidence in support of the complaint established that the respondent, on January 7, 1986, provided Sandra Jo Korns with the last will executed by her mother, Betty Moore, on November 1, 1985, and discussed its terms with Korns. Following the death of Moore on January 16, 1986, Korn told respondent that she had destroyed the November 1, 1985 will and requested that respondent probate a will previously executed on November 18, 1983.

The respondent destroyed his copy of the 1985 will, probated the revoked 1983 will, and administered the estate of Betty Moore in accordance with the terms of the revoked 1983 will. In December 1987, respondent became aware of the possibility that someone had knowledge of the 1985 will. Respondent then initiated action to resolve the claims of aggrieved parties, which was completed on April 12, 1988. On January 14, 1988, respondent filed a grievance against himself.

The panel concluded that the conduct of the respondent violated DR 1-102, 4-101, 7-101 and 7-102, and recommended a public reprimand.

The board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the panel. However, the board noted that the respondent, with no authority, had informed Korns of the content of her mother's then current 1985 will and gave Korns the original. Further, respondent offered the 1983 will for probate only after he thought he was assured that no one else knew of the 1985 will. He then destroyed his copy of the 1985 will and notes pertaining thereto. The board noted that respondent took no action nor undertook full disclosure and settlement until he found a third party had knowledge of the 1985 will. The board, stating that the respondent's actions went to the core of a lawyer's fiduciary responsibilities, recommended that he be suspended for one year from the practice of law and be taxed for costs of these proceedings.

Kettler Centrone, Richard T. Kettler, Michael S. Gruber and Gregory A. Beck, for relator. Black, McCuskey, Souers Arbaugh, Stephen D. Thompson, Homer R. Richards, Miller Kyler and William A. Kyler, for the respondent.


We agree with the findings and recommendations of the board. We are particularly concerned with the fraud perpetrated on the trial court by the probating of the revoked will. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended for one year from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Miller

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jul 26, 1989
541 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio 1989)
Case details for

Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Miller

Case Details

Full title:STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MILLER

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jul 26, 1989

Citations

541 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio 1989)
541 N.E.2d 607

Citing Cases

Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Speros

His misconduct is thus more grievous than was the attorney's in Lynch, and, for that reason, might have…