Opinion
D.D. No. 79-11
Decided July 18, 1979.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disbarment — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
On September 15, 1978, a complaint and certificate was filed in this court by the Ohio State Bar Association against Diana J. Talbott, pursuant to Gov. R.V. The complaint contained seven counts which, in essence, alleged as follows:
1. In 1973, respondent, as trustee for the creditors of one Edgar Adams, misappropriated funds held by her in trust. In addition, respondent received $450 from Adams to represent him in adoption and bankruptcy proceedings; she later returned the $150 fee paid for the adoption proceeding to Adams, yet failed to take any action in the bankruptcy proceeding.
2. In 1973, respondent, as trustee for the creditors of one Stanley Markin, received $2,778.89, but failed to pay the listed creditors of Markin. After Markin declared bankruptcy repeated attempts were made to receive an accounting of the funds. However, respondent refused to answer correspondence or return telephone calls. Finally, in late 1977, the funds were returned by respondent's associate.
3. In 1975, respondent was hired by U.S. Life Credit Corporation to obtain, and collect upon, a judgment against a delinquent debtor. Respondent filed a complaint, but thereafter took no action in the matter. Respondent falsely advised her client that a default judgment had been obtained. Following repeated inquiries into the status of the case, respondent was relieved as counsel.
4. In 1975, respondent was employed by Dana and Karen Murray to represent them in bankruptcy proceedings. She accepted $600, and took charge of all relevant papers. Respondent never filed a petition in bankruptcy, yet continually represented to the Murrays that the proceedings were progressing satisfactorily. In 1976, respondent was discharged by the Murrays; she refused, however, to return either her fee or the documents in her possession. Subsequently, a default judgment was rendered against her in federal Bankruptcy Court for $600, interest, and costs.
5. In 1977, respondent appeared as attorney for the natural father in an adoption proceeding. She sought and was granted an extension of time in which to file an answer. Respondent never filed an answer, arrived at the hearing one-half hour late without her client, and made several oral motions without supporting memoranda or affidavits. She then left the court during a brief recess and failed to return for the remainder of the proceeding.
6. In 1973, respondent was employed by the administratrix of the estate of Haldor Rhea. To date, respondent has prepared and filed the papers necessary to transfer title to a motor vehicle in the name of the decedent; she has taken no further action in this matter, and has resisted attempts by her client and the Probate Court to have her complete all necessary legal work.
7. In 1973, respondent was employed by one Carl Littlejohn surviving spouse of Louise Littlejohn, to handle the legal matters in the administration of the decedent's estate. Respondent had the estate released from administration, however respondent never completed a real estate transfer, nor did she timely filed the state estate tax return. Respondent has failed to respond to repeated requests to complete the work for which she was employed.
Relator sought the permanent disbarment of respondent.
The respondent filed no responsive pleading, nor did she appear at the hearing of the matter conducted at Columbus, on January 19, 1979, before the hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
There were a number of witnesses subpoenaed for this hearing, including four probate judges, clerks of courts, practicing attorneys from Franklin County, a bank vice-president and a bar association investigator with whom the respondent had dealt or had come in contact. There also were a number of former clients of the respondent who appeared and testified as to the manner in which the respondent had represented or, more correctly, failed to represent them.
The findings of the board were as follows:
"It is the finding of the Board that as to Count II Respondent did circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through the actions of another, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(2); as to Count IV Respondent did engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, and misrepresentation, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4); as to Counts I, II, III, IV, and V, Respondent did engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and which adversely reflected on her fitness to practice law, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6); as to Count V Respondent handled a legal matter without adequate preparation under the circumstances, in violation of DR 6-101(A)(2); as to Counts I through VII Respondent did neglect a legal matter entrusted to her, in violation of DR 6-101 (A)(3); as to Counts V Respondent did fail to seek the lawful objectives of her client in violation of DR 7-101(A)(1); as to Counts I, III, IV, V, VI and VII Respondent did fail to carry out a contract of employment and did act to prejudice or damage her client during the course of the professional relationship, in violation of DR 7-101(A)(2) and (3); as to Count II Respondent did fail to properly notify her client of the receipt of funds, identify and label the property of her client, in violation of DR 9-102(B)(1) and (2); as to Counts I, II, and IV Respondent did fail to maintain complete records of all funds coming into her possession and render appropriate accounts to her clients, and did fail to deliver to her clients, funds in her possession which the client was entitled to receive, in violation of DR 9-102(B)(3) and (4)."
Based upon such findings it was the recommendation of the board to this court that the respondent be indefintely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
Mr. John R. Welch, Mr. Albert L. Bell, Mr. James J. Gilvary, and Mr. Kenneth F. Seibel, for relator.
A thorough reading of the record only emphasizes the grossness of the unprofessional manner in which this respondent carried on her law practice, and dealt shoddily with her clients, the courts of Ohio, and her fellow practitioners.
Here, the allegations of the complaint, which are fully supported by the evidence in the record, are not of a single isolated incident in one county but, rather, affected directly a number of clients, several courts, attorneys in several counties, numerous creditors, and others.
The actions of this respondent attorney have shown a marked degree of disregard, disdain and disrespect, if not downright contempt, for the court system, its judges, staff and fellow practitioners.
Of greater import, however, in regard to the charges against this respondent, are the violations of her professional responsibilities to her clients. She received monies from her clients and failed to use such funds for their designated purpose. She failed to properly identify funds belonging to her clients, failed to maintain records of those funds, and failed to deliver them back to her clients.
The respondent accepted legal fees from clients, yet performed little or no service in return. On a number of occasions, as shown by the evidence, respondent disregarded filing times and court procedures, leaving proceedings pending and uncompleted. In the course of her misconduct, she has caused her clients a great deal of inconvenience.
Respondent's failure to either answer the complaint or appear at the hearing of this matter is only further proof of her complete disregard for her professional status.
The conduct of respondent has been shown by relator to be directly in violation of a number of provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Further, her relationship with, and conduct toward her clients, the courts, and her fellow practitioners has been so abysmally low in quality as to reflect adversely upon the legal profession.
At this juncture in the history of the legal profession, when so many members of the bench and bar are striving to upgrade the reputation of the profession, we must not be hesitant to invoke the full measure of censure for those who flagrantly violate the standards of professionalism designed to protect the public.
Here, all the evidence supports the charges levied against the respondent. The board of commissioners recommends that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. However, because of the grossness of respondent's misconduct, we concur in the recommendation of relator, and order that respondent be hereby permanently disbarred.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.