Opinion
No. D.D. 88-1
Submitted March 16, 1988 —
Decided September 7, 1988.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in illegal conduct — Conversion of client's funds.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-87-B.
On June 8, 1987, relator, Geauga County Bar Association, filed a complaint charging respondent, Charles H. Hall, with five counts of misconduct. Respondent answered the complaint on June 22, 1987. The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on December 4, 1987.
The board dismissed Count I of the complaint upon hearing all the evidence presented at the hearing. The allegations made in Counts II through V involve respondent's actions in representing a single client, Lorraine Greene. The facts were stipulated to by the parties. Apart from his own brief explanation of the events from which the complaint arose, respondent offered only the testimony of two character witnesses before the board.
The record reflects that respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1949 and that, prior to the instant matter, he had never before been charged with a disciplinary infraction. In January 1986, however, respondent was employed by Greene to conclude a domestic relations case then pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Geauga County. In early August 1986, Greene received $50,000 from her former husband's pension plan, as the result of the divorce proceeding. Greene endorsed the check and, after receiving $5,000 of the amount in cash, consented to respondent's maintaining the balance in trust.
Thereafter, respondent loaned himself $2,000 of Greene's money so that he could pay some of his personal bills. He did not document the transaction or advise Greene of the loan. Respondent then used $25,000 of Greene's money for the benefit of other clients. The only written account of this transaction was a cognovit note made out in the amount of $9,732.36 and signed by one George L. Csanyi. This transaction was also accomplished without Greene's knowledge and consent.
In September 1986, Greene discharged respondent and employed another attorney. Greene's new attorney contacted respondent and requested the return of her money. Respondent thereafter returned $16,580.17, the sum remaining in the trust account. He then agreed to promptly return the rest of Greene's money and to a fifteen percent interest charge on that amount. He also agreed to repay Greene the attorney fees she had previously paid him and to forgive any outstanding fees.
Respondent returned $20,000 of Greene's money within thirty days of this agreement. He paid the balance of the debt, $12,532.01, on February 27, 1987.
Relator charged that the foregoing conduct violated, inter alia, DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney's fitness to practice law), 9-102(B)(3) (failing to maintain accurate records of client's funds within attorney's possession), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly deliver to client funds to which client is entitled).
The board found that the record supported violations of all the Disciplinary Rules listed above. Before making its recommendation, the board took note of respondent's repayment of Greene's money, his active community involvement, his cooperation in the investigation of his misconduct, and his remorse. Thereafter, the board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year and that his suspension be followed by a year of supervised probation.
Daniel Earl Bond, Woodard Griffiths and David E. Griffiths, for relator.
Ulrich Cantor and Abraham Cantor, for respondent.
This court's review of the record also supports that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 9-102(B)(3), and 9-102(B)(4). In the past, we have responded to misconduct like respondent's by suspending the violator indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. Disciplinary Counsel v. Heck (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 33, 15 OBR 133, 472 N.E.2d 694; Bar Assn. of Greater Cleveland v. Schnittger (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 26, 3 OBR 497, 445 N.E.2d 662. As a result, we must reject the sanction recommended by the board. Respondent is hereby ordered indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.
LOCHER, J., not participating.