Opinion
No. 86-12
Decided July 23, 1986.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of legal matter — Excessive fee — Acts of dishonesty and creating false evidence.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
Relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, instituted this complaint against respondent, Edward H. Stinson. Stinson was charged with, inter alia, violating the following sections of the Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 1-102(A)(6), engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law; DR 6-101(A)(3), neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him; DR 2-106(A), charging an excessive fee; DR 1-102(A)(4), engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud and deceit; and DR 7-102(A)(6), creating false evidence. A hearing was held before a three-member panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline ("board"). Respondent was present and represented by counsel. Upon respondent's request, the hearing was conducted in private. The following findings of fact were deduced at the hearing.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio on August 17, 1953. On or about September 11, 1973, respondent was retained to represent Lois J. Daly, the named executrix in the last will and testament of Luella Margeurite Hunting. The Hunting estate was administered in the Probate Court of Cuyahoga County. The estate had three heirs: Donna Hallford, sister of the decedent, and Hallford's two children, Harold Hallford and Lois Daly.
The estate consisted of bank and credit union accounts, cash, U.S. Saving Bonds, American Telephone Telegraph stock, and a diamond ring. Respondent took custody of all the estate assets except the ring, and of all checks and statements of the estate checking account. The estate had ten creditors, all of whom were paid in full on or before June 1, 1974. After payment of the creditors, the only remaining duties before closing the estate were to file a return and pay the estate tax, pay attorney fees and court costs, distribute the assets to the beneficiaries, and file the final account.
The Ohio estate tax return was never filed. On November 22, 1982, approximately nine years after the appointment of the executrix, the estate tax was computed by the Tax Commissioner and the estate was penalized $1,000 plus interest of $583.78 for its failure to promptly file the return and pay the estate tax. On February 16, 1984, Daly was removed as executrix for failure to file a final account as required by law, and Melvin H. Bancheck was appointed administrator de bonis non, wwa. Bancheck's appointment took effect on March 15, 1984, and the final account was then filed on November 27, 1984 and approved on January 7, 1985.
By rule of court, the fees payable to respondent amounted to approximately $2,000. He was, in fact, paid $9,410.
One of the accounts filed for the estate indicated that $6,841.81 had been distributed to Donna Hallford and that she had signed a receipt of payment. Hallford did not, however, receive this distribution.
Another account indicated that $7,898.90 had been distributed to Donna Hallford, and $2,500 had been distributed to Daly. Neither woman received such a distribution, despite the fact that Daly signed, upon respondent's request, a receipt of payment.
On December 10, 1982, respondent wrote a check for $100 on the estate checking account which was made payable to Daly. Respondent, without permission or authority, signed Daly's name to the check both as maker and as endorser. On December 21, 1982, respondent had Daly sign a blank check that was afterwards completed by respondent in the sum of $3,500 and made payable to Stanley Trucking, Inc. Stanley Trucking was not entitled to receive any funds from the estate. On September 2, 1983, respondent wrote a check payable to himself for $1,000 and signed Daly's name as maker.
All the foregoing monies were eventually refunded to the estate, with no loss sustained by any beneficiary.
The board found that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules: DR 6-101(A)(3), neglecting a legal matter; DR 2-106(A), charging an excessive fee; DR 1-102(A)(4), committing acts of dishonesty; DR 7-102(A)(6), creating false evidence; DR 1-102(A)(6), engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. The board recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Angelo J. Gagliardo, disciplinary counsel, and Charles T. Brown, for relator.
David N. Patterson, for respondent.
Based upon review of the evidence presented to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, the court concurs in the findings and recommendations of the board. Therefore, it is the judgment of the court that respondent, Edward H. Stinson, be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Costs of the proceeding are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.