Opinion
No. 85-18
Decided July 31, 1985.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Conviction of grand theft from estate — Failure to respond to charges.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
The Bar Association of Greater Cleveland, relator, filed a complaint against Louis H. Bostnar, respondent, with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar ("board") charging respondent with violations of DR 1-102(A), 1-102(A)(3) and (4), and 9-102(B)(3) and (4).
Count One of the amended complaint alleged the following facts. On October 17, 1967, respondent was appointed executor of the estate of Mary Milavec. Respondent failed to file an accounting pursuant to R.C. 2109.30. The Probate Court of Cuyahoga County subsequently substituted another attorney as administrator of the Milavec estate. On November 17, 1983, a hearing was held which disclosed that approximately $4,000 in the possession of respondent in his capacity as executor had never been distributed according to the will. The probate court then filed a judgment entry that respondent had converted this sum, and ordered him to make restitution to the estate in the amount of $10,771.06, which included interest at the rate of six percent per annum computed from October 17, 1967.
Relator charged that the foregoing conduct constituted violations of DR 1-102(A), 9-102(B)(3) and (4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Count Two of the complaint alleged that respondent pleaded guilty to grand theft and was sentenced accordingly. On December 17, 1984, respondent was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Gov. Bar. R. V 8(a)(iii). Count Two further alleged that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and (4), and 9-102(B)(3) and (4).
On March 22, 1985, a hearing was held before a panel of the board. Respondent did not appear. There was no evidence that respondent had ever made any restitution as ordered by the probate court. The board concluded that respondent violated DR 1-102(A), 1-102(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(3) and (4), and that "[i]n view of the failure of the Respondent to respond in any way and the serious nature of the charges involving theft of funds from an estate the Board recommends that the Respondent be permanently disbarred."
Richard McGraw, Marvin L. Karp and Daniel W. Hammer, for relator.
This court has examined the record developed before the board and concurs in the board's finding that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A), 1-102(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(3) and (4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We also concur in the board's recommendation that these violations, coupled with respondent's failure to respond to the charges in any way, merit the sanction of disbarment. Accordingly, we adopt the recommendation of the board and order that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.