From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bar Assn. of Greater Cleveland v. Schnittger

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 2, 1983
445 N.E.2d 662 (Ohio 1983)

Opinion

D.D. No. 82-28

Decided March 2, 1983.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Conversion of trust funds — Failure to preserve identity of funds and property of client.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

The Bar Association of Greater Cleveland, relator herein, filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (board) charging Robert E. Schnittger, respondent herein, with violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) in that he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, and DR 9-102(A) and (B) in that he failed to preserve the identity of funds and property of a client.

DR 1-102 reads, in part, as follows:
"(A) A lawyer shall not:
"* * *
"(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." DR 9-102 reads as follows:
"(A) All funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law firm, other than advances for costs and expenses, shall be deposited in one or more identifiable bank accounts maintained in the state in which the law office is situated and no funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm shall be deposited therein except as follows:
"(1) Funds reasonably sufficient to pay bank charges may be deposited therein.
"(2) Funds belonging in part to a client and in part presently or potentially to the lawyer or law firm must be deposited therein, but the portion belonging to the lawyer or law firm may be withdrawn when due unless the right of the lawyer or law firm to receive it is disputed by the client, in which event the disputed portion shall not be withdrawn until the dispute is finally resolved.
"(B) A lawyer shall:
"(1) Promptly notify a client of the receipt of his funds, securities, or other properties.
"(2) Identify and label securities and properties of a client promptly upon receipt and place them in a safe deposit box or other place of safekeeping as soon as practicable.
"(3) Maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his client regarding them.
"(4) Promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by a client the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive."

Prior to the hearing before the board, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts, which included the following. On December 10, 1974, respondent was appointed successor trustee of a trust provided for in the will of Grange G. Alves, deceased. Trust funds were placed in a checking account and a savings account, and both accounts were held in respondent's name as trustee. From 1974 to 1978, respondent withdrew funds totalling $32,072.23. He acknowledged that these funds were improperly applied to his personal use.

A bonding company, in compliance with its obligations, restored the funds improperly taken by respondent to the trust estate. It was also stipulated that respondent has regularly paid the bonding company at least $100 per month and has made a total restitution of $9,300, leaving $22,772.23 outstanding. At the hearing before the board, respondent testified that his gross annual income before expenses was about $15,000 in 1980 and about $20,000 in 1981.

The board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 9-102(A) and (B) and recommended that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Mr. Lewis Einbund, Mr. Alec Berezin and Mr. Sheldon L. Braverman, for relator.

Mr. Henry D. Rand, for respondent.


"One of the fundamental tenets of the professional responsibility of a lawyer is 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 [58 O.O.2d 151].

Having reviewed the record and the recommendation of the board, we conclude that there are ample facts to justify the board's finding that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 9-102(A) and (B) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bar Assn. of Greater Cleveland v. Schnittger

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 2, 1983
445 N.E.2d 662 (Ohio 1983)
Case details for

Bar Assn. of Greater Cleveland v. Schnittger

Case Details

Full title:BAR ASSOCIATION OF GREATER CLEVELAND v. SCHNITTGER

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Mar 2, 1983

Citations

445 N.E.2d 662 (Ohio 1983)
445 N.E.2d 662

Citing Cases

Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hall

This court's review of the record also supports that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3),…

Dayton Bar Assn. v. Gross

" In fact, in recent years this court has articulated a consistent policy of imposing either indefinite…