From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Heck

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 13, 1984
472 N.E.2d 694 (Ohio 1984)

Opinion

D.D. No. 84-15

Decided December 13, 1984.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Commingling client funds — Failure to cooperate in proceedings.

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

Relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline charging respondent, Ronald G. Heck, with misconduct.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio on November 7, 1970. On or about March 10, 1982, respondent was retained, to settle a wrongful death action, by Carolyn J. McGee, fiduciary of the estate of Frederick A. McGee.

Subsequently respondent made application to the Probate Court of Hancock County to distribute an $8,833.33 settlement. These funds were to be allocated as follows: $2,008.40 to Carolyn J. McGee; $2,008.39 to Warren W. McGee; $1,872.10 for funeral expenses; and the remaining $2,944.44 as attorney fees. The total settlement award was deposited in respondent's trust account but the monies owed to Warren W. McGee were not paid until July 29, 1983.

Evidence showed that prior to the time Mr. McGee was paid, funds in the trust account were depleted below the amount owed McGee. In addition, respondent failed to respond to Mr. McGee's request and the requests of legal counsel for Mr. McGee retained to obtain the settlement funds from respondent.

When proceedings were commenced by the board, respondent was particularly uncooperative and failed to appear at his hearing. Accordingly, the board found that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules: DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law); DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter); DR 7-101(A)(3) (prejudice or damage to a client during professional relationship); and DR 9-102(A) and (B) (failure to maintain separate accounts for client and attorney and commingling of funds). The board recommended an indefinite suspension.

Mr. Angelo J. Gagliardo, disciplinary counsel, and Mr. Mark H. Aultman, for relator.


An assiduous scrutiny of the record compels us to accept the findings of the board. Although the commingling of client funds with those of the attorney, to the prejudice of a client, warrants strong disciplinary action, it is respondent's demeanor throughout these proceedings that is ultimately responsible for the gravity of the sanction we impose today.

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Heck

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 13, 1984
472 N.E.2d 694 (Ohio 1984)
Case details for

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Heck

Case Details

Full title:OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HECK

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 13, 1984

Citations

472 N.E.2d 694 (Ohio 1984)
472 N.E.2d 694

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),…

Bar Assn. of Greater Cleveland v. Rubinstein

We note that the respondent cooperated in the proceedings below and that he pledged to make his clients…