Opinion
No. 89-1561
Submitted November 8, 1989 —
Decided February 7, 1990.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Conviction of receiving stolen property — Representation of clients while under suspension from the practice of law.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 89-05.
Relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint against respondent, Walter H. Rubenstein, on March 1, 1989, charging him with violating DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in other conduct that adversely reflects on the fitness to practice law).
Relator charged that respondent violated the Disciplinary Rules because respondent was convicted of receiving stolen property and multiple theft offenses arising out of his law practice. All the theft convictions involved clients of respondent whom he represented while under suspension from the practice of law in Ohio.
Respondent, who was sentenced to a total of one hundred fourteen months in prison, has substantially admitted most of the allegations against him in his answer.
Respondent has admitted in his answer to Count One of the complaint that he was sentenced in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County to three consecutive eighteen-month prison terms. Respondent has admitted to having been found guilty of receiving stolen property, a felony of the fourth degree, when he received and disposed of money orders which he had reason to believe were obtained through the commission of a theft offense.
Respondent has also admitted to having pleaded guilty to four felonies of the fourth degree and one misdemeanor of the first degree for taking control over money with the purpose to deprive the owners of the money without their consent. Five individuals, each of whom retained respondent for legal representation, tendered monies to respondent for purported legal services. Furthermore, respondent has admitted to having pleaded guilty to theft, a felony of the fourth degree, for taking control over money with the purpose to deprive the owner of the money without the owner's consent. He has denied only that one person from whom he stole retained respondent for legal representation and that the tendered money was used in furtherance of her legal claim.
Relator also charged in the complaint that in March 1986, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one year for engaging in dishonest conduct and taking monies that clients were entitled to receive. Additionally, in June 1988, respondent was found in contempt for failure to comply with the court's order by practicing law without being readmitted to practice and was fined $10,000. Because respondent never applied for readmission, he was suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for an indefinite period.
The hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline concluded that respondent violated all the Disciplinary Rules charged. The panel labeled respondent's conduct as reprehensible. Respondent did not appear nor was he represented to explain or offer any mitigating evidence. Furthermore, the panel found that respondent had been previously disciplined by the court yet did not adhere to the court's order, and that respondent's convictions of multiple felonies while under suspension from the practice of law were in direct and blatant disregard of this court's order.
The panel unanimously recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law. The board adopted the panel's findings and recommendation and further recommended that the costs of the proceedings be taxed to the respondent.
Thomas L. Dettelbach, John Mulligan and Harry Hanna, for relator.
Walter H. Rubenstein, pro se.
We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), and 1-102(A)(6), and we also adopt the board's recommendations. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred 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.