Opinion
D.D. No. 80-13
Decided December 23, 1980.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
On May 1, 1980, the duly-appointed hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline convened a private hearing in this cause pursuant to a complaint filed by relator, Lake County Bar Association, charging respondent, David N. Patterson, with misconduct.
The complaint charged respondent with seven counts of misconduct. However, upon motion of respondent, Counts Nos. 1 and 3 were dismissed by the board at the close of relator's case-in-chief.
Count No. 2 alleged that respondent, in his alleged purchase of the law business of Ronald Rubin, violated DR 2-103(B) by compensating or giving something of value to a person to secure employment by a client. Count No. 4 alleged that respondent did not adequately and properly represent Rubin in a divorce proceeding. Count No. 5 alleged DR 5-105(B) and (C) violations by respondent in that he failed to secure the consent of his client, Rubin, to respondent's multiple employment.
Count No. 6 alleged misconduct on the part of respondent in his representation of James Thompson in a bankruptcy proceeding.
Count No. 7 alleged that respondent (1) permitted a client, Mercedes V. Mulholland, to invest money in a corporation in which respondent held an interest as a shareholder, director and officer without informing the client of his interest; (2) failed to represent Mulholland in a criminal proceeding adequately; and (3) solicited Mulholland to name the respondent as a trustee and contingent beneficiary in her will.
Subsequent to respondent's answer and a full hearing, the board found that respondent violated DR 2-103(B) for the conduct alleged in Count No. 2, and DR 5-101(A), DR 5-105(A), DR 5-105(B) and DR 7-101(A)(3) for the conduct alleged in Count No. 7. The board found in respondent's favor on all other counts.
Pursuant to Gov. R. V, the board recommended that respondent be given a public reprimand.
Mr. Joseph P. Tulley, Mr. Clifton P. Jones and Mr. David J. Richards, Jr., for relator.
Robert J. DiCello Co., L.P.A., and Mr. Robert J. DiCello, for respondent.
The evidence indicates that, with respect to Counts Nos. 2 and 7, the respondent did not act maliciously or for gain. Indeed, respondent did make restitution to Mrs. Mulholland for the sum which she invested in the corporation.
However, it is one of the fundamental tenets of the professional responsibility of a lawyer that he "***should maintain a degree of personal and professional integrity that meets the highest standard. The integrity of the profession can be maintained only if the conduct of the individual attorney is above reproach.***" Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 77, 81.
After a careful examination and review of the record in this cause, this court concurs with the findings and conclusion of the board that respondent violated DR 2-103(B), DR 5-101(A), DR 5-105(A), DR 5-105(B) and DR 7-101(A)(3).
Accordingly, it is the judgment of this court that respondent receive a public reprimand, and it is so ordered.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, MCBRIDE, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES and DOWD, JJ., concur.
MCBRIDE, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting for P. BROWN, J.