Opinion
No. 90-1125
Submitted July 31, 1990 —
Decided December 12, 1990.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Mismanagement of probate proceedings, guardianships, bankruptcy proceedings and will contest action — Failure to make timely filings in estates and guardianships.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 88-61.
On December 21, 1988, relators, Disciplinary Counsel and the Medina County Bar Association, filed a complaint against respondent Gregg F. Giegel, charging him with numerous violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility in twenty-five counts. Respondent requested and received an extension of time to file his answer, which was filed on February 15, 1989. Stipulations concerning Counts I through XXIII, between respondent and relator Medina County Bar Association, and stipulations concerning Counts XXIV and XXV, between respondent and relator Disciplinary Counsel, were filed with a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline on May 25, 1989. A formal hearing was begun on May 25, 1989, but did not proceed beyond the first day of testimony. Upon notice being delivered to respondent of the next hearing date, set for August 16 and 17, 1989, respondent's attorney requested a continuance because respondent was then undergoing alcohol abuse treatment and could not leave his treatment center on those dates. Supplemental joint stipulations, an agreement to an indefinite suspension, and a waiver of a subsequent hearing were then filed on December 28, 1989.
Count I of the complaint alleged respondent mismanaged a probate proceeding for the Ardea E. Rogers estate. Respondent was charged with violating DR 6-101(A)(1) (handling a legal matter on which he was not competent), 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter), 9-102(B)(3) (failure to maintain complete records and render accounts to client), and 9-102(B)(4) (failure to promptly pay funds to client). Respondent admitted violating DR 6-101(A)(3) in the stipulations, and the panel so found.
Counts II and VII alleged respondent mismanaged the guardianships of Seth Gammon and Lucas K. Berkey. Respondent was charged with violating DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1) (failure to seek lawful objectives of client), and 7-101(A)(2) (failure to fulfill a contract of employment with client). Respondent admitted violating DR 6-101(A)(3) in the stipulations, and the panel so found.
Counts III through VI alleged that respondent mismanaged probate proceedings for the estates of Glen A. Leatherman, John G. Miller, Vernon R. Frederick, and Mary J. Dalessandro. Respondent was charged with violating DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), and 7-101(A)(2). Respondent admitted violating DR 6-101(A)(3) in the stipulations, and the panel so found.
Count VIII alleged that respondent mismanaged a probate proceeding for the Doyle D. Pfouts estate. Respondent was charged with violating DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on one's fitness to practice law). Respondent admitted violating DR 6-101(A)(3) in the stipulations, and the panel so found.
Counts IX through XXII alleged that respondent mismanaged probate proceedings for the estates of Mabel C. Dangel, John H. Erbse, Charles John Giegel, Sr., Michael Shaun Sayre, Fern E. Mann, Sidney M. Smith, Eva Kramer, John R. Berlyak, Simon D. Garito, Vernon L. Knapp, Nellie L. Fraley, Harold J. Truex, Thomas Vahey, and Carl E. Rufener. Respondent was charged with violating DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), and 7-101(A)(2). Respondent admitted violating DR 6-101(A)(3), and the panel so found.
Count XXIII alleged that respondent mismanaged a will contest involving the Clarence M. Griffin estate. Respondent was charged with violating DR 6-101(A)(2) (handling a legal matter without adequate preparation), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), and 1-102(A)(4). Respondent admitted violating DR 6-101(A)(3) in the stipulations, and the panel so found.
Count XXIV alleged that on May 9, 1988, the Probate Court of Medina County made an entry stating that respondent had failed to make timely filings in twenty-two estates and guardianships and that the court therefore prohibited respondent from filing any new estate matters until he was current in his fiduciary duties. Respondent was charged with violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6). Respondent admitted to these violations in the supplemental stipulations, and the panel so found.
Count XXV alleged that respondent mismanaged a bankruptcy proceeding for Rachel and Bob Gammon. Respondent was charged with violations of DR 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(3), 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), and 2-106(A) (illegal or excessive fee). Respondent admitted violating "DR 6-101(A)(6) [ sic, DR 6-101(A)(3) or 1-102(A)(6)]" in the supplemental stipulations, and the panel so found.
The panel determined that respondent's professional misconduct stemmed from his alcohol dependency. Respondent has undergone medical treatment for his alcohol problem and has admitted in the stipulations that he has a serious chemical dependency problem. Respondent knowingly gave up his right to a formal hearing and entered into an agreement with the relators that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Based on the foregoing, the panel found that respondent should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law until such time that he can demonstrate his alcohol dependency problem is satisfactorily resolved. The panel also recommended that the respondent make restitution to any client who lost money because of respondent's conduct. The board adopted the panel's findings and its recommendations, with the additional recommendation that the final disciplinary order direct respondent to pay all costs associated with the disciplinary proceeding.
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Karen B. Hull, for relator Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
John T. Jeandrevin and John C. Oberholtzer, for relator Medina County Bar Association.
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
We concur with the board's findings and recommendations. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Moreover, the court admonishes respondent that in any application for reinstatement, the court will look for proof that respondent has resolved his alcohol abuse problems and made restitution to persons injured by his misconduct. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.