Summary
In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Teaford (1966), 6 Ohio St.2d 253, 255, 35 O.O.2d 418, 419, 217 N.E.2d 872, 873, we stated, "Although there is no limitation period on the assertion of charges of misconduct against an attorney, it is not completely fair to require a party to respond to claims which have grown stale by the passage of time * * *. Records may be destroyed and recollection may be hazy. It is for this reason that the prosecution of old claims is not favored."
Summary of this case from Cleveland Bar Assn. v. MallinOpinion
D.D. No. 71
Decided June 15, 1966.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Continued course of improper and careless conduct — Acts warranting public reprimand.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The relator, the Columbus Bar Association, filed a complaint against the respondent, Robert E. Teaford, containing three specifications of misconduct arising out of the attorney-client relationship between respondent and one Herbert W. Riegler.
Riegler became a client of respondent in early 1950, and the relationship was terminated in the spring of 1960. Subsequently, on June 4, 1960, Reigler demanded an accounting for moneys allegedly due him from respondent. Upon failing to obtain the accounting, to which he alleged he was entitled, Riegler brought suit on August 18, 1961, in the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County against the respondent. This suit was settled.
Disciplinary proceedings by relator were commenced on September 15, 1964.
The first specification of misconduct with which respondent is charged relates to the alleged conversion by respondent, to his personal use, of $3,000 which Riegler gave to him on September 5, 1953, allegedly for investment in a grain-elevator business.
The second specification relates to the alleged conversion by respondent of $10,403.76 which was given to him by Riegler on November 16, 1953, allegedly for the purchase of real estate for Riegler.
The third specification relates to the alleged conversion by respondent of $6,000 given to him by Riegler on April 19, 1956, allegedly for the purchase of shares of stock in Nationwide Corporation.
In his answer to the complaint, respondent admits the receipt of these sums of money, but denies that the transactions occurred as alleged in the complaint and denies that any moneys to which Riegler was entitled were ever improperly converted by respondent to his own use.
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found that respondent was guilty of violation of Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Section 5 (a) of Rule XVIII of the Rules of this court in "refusing to account for money of his client and money received for his client."
The board recommended that respondent be suspended for an indefinite period from the practice of law.
Mr. Dwight I. Hurd, Mr. Grant S. Richards and Mr. James C. Justice, for relator.
Mr. Collis Gundy Lane, for respondent.
The report of the board refers to the active participation by respondent with Riegler in "acts of an undesirable character" and the giving of advice which resulted in undesirable acts by the client.
The board made no finding that money had been given to respondent in trust by Riegler or that the respondent converted to his own use any money to which Riegler was entitled.
There was no finding as to the particluar and specific misconduct of the respondent which convinced the board to make its recommendation.
The evidence presented at the hearing was in sharp conflict, and it is, therefore, necessary to examine the entire record. In re Disbarment of Lieberman, 163 Ohio St. 35; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Fleck, 172 Ohio St. 467.
Upon a careful review of the record, this court has reached the conclusion that the charge of conversion of the client's money is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The explanation by respondent as to the manner of the receipt of the funds in question and their disposition is reasonable and is corroborated in many respects.
Much of the evidence in this proceeding involved the review of stale claims which were asserted for the first time after a disagreement which terminated the relationship between two persons who were business associates, as well as attorney and client. The respondent's handling of funds which the client had given him, which handling the relator alleges constituted misconduct, occurred early in the relationship between respondent and Riegler. Riegler, with full knowledge that he had given these funds to respondent, did not see fit to complain of any "conversion" until 1960, approximately four years after the last transaction which is now alleged to be improper, and shortly after respondent refused to continue to represent him.
Although there is no limitation period on the assertion of charges of misconduct against an attorney, it is not completely fair to require a party to respond to claims which have grown stale by the passage of time, particularly in a case such as this one. Records may be destroyed and recollection may be hazy. It is for this reason that the prosecution of old claims is not favored. See 7 American Jurisprudence 2d 86, Attorneys at Law, Section 62.
Although this court is convinced that the record does not support a finding that the respondent is guilty of the conversion of the client's funds as charged, the record does demonstrate a continued course of improper and careless conduct by the respondent contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Canons of Professional Ethics, which conduct is inconsistent with the traditions of the legal profession and with the rectitude and dignity with which its members should comport themselves at all time.
The respondent should be, and hereby is, publicly reprimanded for this misconduct.
Judgment accordingly.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, SCHNEIDER and BROWN, JJ. concur.
HERBERT, J., not participating.