Opinion
No. 89-2169
Submitted February 7, 1990 —
Decided April 18, 1990.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Conviction for grand theft from an estate.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 89-43.
In a complaint filed on August 25, 1989, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged, inter alia, that respondent, Laurice Maxine Koury, had been convicted of grand theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(2), and that she had thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney's fitness to practice law). Respondent answered the complaint on September 18, 1989. On December 4, 1989, the parties stipulated that indefinite suspension was an appropriate sanction for respondent's misconduct and agreed to waive a hearing in the matter.
According to the stipulations, respondent's conviction resulted from her involvement with the estate of Ernest L. Nemeth. Nemeth had engaged respondent to draft his will, and the will named respondent as executrix. After Nemeth died, however, respondent went to Nemeth's house with a locksmith and stuffed her purse and coat pockets with money and jewelry from the home. When respondent later met with two of Nemeth's relatives, respondent had with her approximately $27,000 in cash from Nemeth's den. Respondent also gave one of the relatives a diamond ring and indicated to him that she was keeping a cocktail ring. Neither item was included in the estate inventory.
Respondent was suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio, pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V(9)(a)(iii), on November 26, 1986 for having been convicted of a felony. Her conviction has since been affirmed by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. Respondent's sentence, a year in the Ohio Reformatory for Women, has been suspended in favor of a three-year probation.
Based on the foregoing, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court found violations of DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), and 1-102(A)(6), and recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board adopted the panel's findings and recommendation.
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Karen B. Hull, for relator.
Dennis O. Kaps, for respondent.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we concur in the board's findings of misconduct and its recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. Respondent's suspension shall commence on the date of this decision. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.
MOYER, C.J., and RESNICK, J., dissent.
The respondent's criminal conduct was directly related to the practice of law. She was acting in a fiduciary capacity having been named executrix of the estate. While in this position of trust, she took both cash and jewelry from the estate. As a result she was convicted of grand theft. Since she has been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude directly related to the practice of law, it is my opinion that such misconduct warrants permanent disbarment.
MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.