Opinion
D.D. No. 70-8
Decided March 24, 1971.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disciplinary action — Permanent disbarment — Larceny by trick.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Relator, the Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint against Charles J. Corrigan, respondent, an attorney at law duly admitted to practice in Ohio, charging him with eight specifications of misconduct arising out of respondent's activities in representing three clients.
In its report, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found that respondent represented Lester Lazelle and his wife, Helen, in a suit for damages sustained by them in an automobile accident. The cause was settled, and on or about January 8, 1969, respondent secured the signatures of Lazelle and his wife to a release, and obtained their endorsements to a claim draft for $3,900. Respondent promised that the Lazelles would receive their portion ($3,300) of the claim draft within a few days.
On the following day, respondent presented this draft, without having remitted the funds belonging to the Lazelles, to Probate Judge Calvin W. Hutchins of Ashtabula County, in partial settlement of an accounting due from respondent in that court in an unrelated estate and guardianship matter. Upon respondent's representation that he had paid the Lazelles their share of the settlement, the Probate Judge accepted the draft as part of the funds which respondent used to make the accounting.
When the Lazelles did not receive the $3,300 as promised by respondent, and their telephone calls to him yielded no results, Lazelle complained to the Cleveland Bar Association and the Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney's office. The matter was brought before the grand jury and respondent was indicted for embezzlement and larceny by trick. On April 6, 1970, respondent pleaded guilty to larceny by trick (R.C. 2907.21), and the court entered a nolle prosequi as to the count for embezzlement. The Lazelles received payment in full after respondent was indicted, but before he was convicted of larceny by trick. It is unclear as to whether the Lazelles were paid by the respondent himself, or were paid by respondent's mother.
The board also found that respondent represented Mr. and Mrs. James J. Watkins in collecting damages for injuries to them and to their daughter. Following a settlement agreement, the Watkins signed a release, and on July 23, 1968, respondent obtained their endorsements to claim drafts in the amounts of $3,427.52 and $75.
After obtaining these endorsements, respondent cashed the drafts but did not remit the funds belonging to the Watkins. Subsequent efforts by the Watkins to obtain payment from respondent were unsuccessful. As of the date of the hearing before the board, the funds due to the Watkins from these drafts had not been received by them.
The board concluded further that respondent represented Mrs. Helen Pryor in litigation concerning the death of her husband. Attorney John P. Mahoney of the Ashtabula County Bar was selected to open the estate of Francis Pryor in that county in order to secure the appointment of Helen Pryor as administratrix. An action for wrongful death was then filed in the United States District Court, and on April 16, 1968, the cause was settled for $60,000. Respondent obtained Mrs. Pryor's endorsement on the settlement draft and promised that he would contact her within a week or ten days. Hearing nothing from respondent, Mrs. Pryor unsuccessfully attempted to reach him. She finally contacted Mr. Mahoney, who was able to arrange a meeting between her and respondent. At this meeting, which took place at or around the end of May 1968, respondent gave Mrs. Pryor his personal check for $13,500. He told her that he had given the remainder of the funds for the children ($22,500) to Mahoney, who would handle the matter through the Probate Court and set up a trust fund for the children.
Early in June 1968, one of the Pryor children required surgery, and Mrs. Pryor asked Mahoney whether the child's funds could be used to cover the expense. She learned then that respondent had not turned the funds over to Mahoney. In August 1968, Mrs. Pryor wrote to Probate Judge Calvin W. Hutchins about the nonpayment.
The report of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline also states that, upon receipt of Mrs. Pryor's letter, Judge Hutchins attempted to reach respondent by telephone and wrote a letter requesting him to discuss the matter. The judge received several telephone calls from respondent, stating that he would be in to discuss the matter with the judge, but by September 1968 respondent had failed to appear. Judge Hutchins thereupon ordered that respondent come to the judge's office or be held in contempt of court. Subsequently, there were delivered to Judge Hutchins respondent's personal checks in the amounts of $22,500 and $480. The check for $22,500 was returned for insufficient funds. Thereafter, on behalf of respondent, certain other funds were delivered to the court, including a check drawn by respondent in the amount of $6,821, payable to "Francis J. Ebenger, Escrow Agent." The latter check was also dishonored. The respondent's account was finally settled on January 9, 1969, when respondent appeared under court order and delivered the remaining funds, including the aforementioned claim draft endorsed by the Lazelles.
In consideration of the foregoing, the board concluded that respondent's actions constituted professional misconduct and recommended that he be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.
Mr. Arthur T. Wincek, Mr. John E. Martindale and Mr. Sheldon D. Schecter, for relator.
Mr. John J. Gill, for respondent.
In searching the entire record de novo, it is clear that respondent was convicted of larceny by trick. This is a crime involving moral turpitude.
We find further that respondent cashed the Watkins claim drafts without accounting to his clients for their funds, and that respondent withheld such funds from the Watkins for over a year. The record does not show that these clients have ever received the money to which they are entitled.
We also find that respondent failed to promptly account for funds belonging to his client, Mrs. Helen Pryor, administratrix; that only after considerable urgings by Mrs. Pryor and attorney Mahoney, did respondent make such accounting; and that respondent falsely informed his client that he had paid $22,500 for the children to attorney Mahoney.
With respect to respondent's actions in the Probate Court of Ashtabula County, we find that respondent consistently disregarded the court's requests to appear and discuss the respondent's nonpayment of funds to attorney Mahoney; that respondent twice delivered worthless checks to the Probate Court; and that respondent falsely stated to the Probate Court that he had paid the Lazelles their portion of the claim draft which respondent presented in partial settlement of an unrelated matter in that court.
Respondent's behavior clearly constitutes professional misconduct in that he was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and violated his oath of office, which requires an attorney, inter alia, to "maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers," and never "seek to mislead the judge * * * by any artifice or false statement of fact * * *." Equally clear is the fact that respondent's conduct before the Probate Court of Ashtabula County was not characterized by the candor and fairness envisaged and required by Canon 22 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Moreover, respondent has abused the confidence reposed in him by his clients, failed to promptly report and account for client's funds coming into his possession, commingled money of his own, and used that money for his own purposes. Respondent has violated Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
Effective October 5, 1970, this court adopted the Code of Professional Responsibility. With reference to the provisions of Canon 22, see Cano 7, DR 7-102(A) (5), DR 7-106(C) (6). With reference to the provisions of Canon 11, see Canon 9, DR 9-102(B) (3), DR 9-102(B) (4).
We have considered respondent's contentions and find no facts in mitigation or justification of his actions.
The recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline is well taken, and judgment is hereby rendered permanently disbarring respondent from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
O'NEILL, C.J., SCHNEIDER, HERBERT, DUNCAN, CORRIGAN, STERN and LEACH, JJ., concur.