Opinion
No. D.D. 88-32
Submitted February 14, 1989 —
Decided April 26, 1989.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Conviction of felony — Theft by deception — Illegal receipt of money from insurance company.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 88-33-B.
On June 22, 1988, Disciplinary Counsel, relator, filed a complaint against respondent, Richard Eugene Leeth, alleging one count of misconduct for violation of DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The hearing on the case was to have been held on September 27, 1988, but prior to that date, respondent waived the hearing and submitted stipulations regarding the entire matter.
Respondent admitted the allegations and misconduct as alleged in the complaint and stipulated that he should be suspended from the practice of law indefinitely.
The events that led to the complaint are as follows. On or about November 7, 1986, respondent was indicted in State v. Richard Leeth, case No. 86 CR-588, in the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, for a violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3), theft by deception. According to the indictment, respondent illegally received $7,513.50 from the Allstate Insurance Company. On or about January 7, 1987, respondent was found guilty of the theft. On or about February 11, 1987, respondent was sentenced to serve six months at the Chillicothe Correctional Institute and to pay a fine of $1,500, and was ordered to make restitution of the $7,513.50 to Allstate.
All appeals of the judgment of the court of common pleas were exhausted resulting in no change in the original sentence.
On February 4, 1987, this court in case No. D.S.-87-1, ordered respondent suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for an indefinite period pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V(9)(a)(iii).
The hearing panel concluded that respondent had violated the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules and recommended an indefinite suspension. The board concurred in the panel's findings, but recommended that, in addition to the indefinite suspension, respondent pay the costs of the proceedings.
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Carl J. Corletzi, for relator.
Theodore T. Ivanchak, for respondent.
We concur with the board's findings and its recommendations. Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to the respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.