ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.

The respondent, Thomas P. Woods, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio on November 9, 1974.

On September 20, 1984, respondent was found guilty of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02, forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31, and uttering in violation of R.C. 2913.31. Respondent was sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of one year.

Respondent's convictions arose from his relationship with Mrs. Dorothy Berning. Respondent had developed a close relationship with Mrs. Berning over a period of eight years, which did not involve any attorney-client activities. Respondent undertook repairs to Mrs. Berning's home and did other chores for her. When Mrs. Berning's husband passed away, respondent took care of the funeral arrangements. Respondent indicated that he had a "mother-son" relationship with Mrs. Berning.

In 1981 and 1982, respondent handled certain financial transactions for Mrs. Berning and, on occasion, would sign her name to documents on her behalf. It does not appear that respondent had a power of attorney for these purposes. At no time did respondent charge any fees to Mrs. Berning for the activities he undertook on her behalf, nor did he hold any monies in trust for her. Mrs. Berning apparently had a great deal of confidence in respondent. It was stated at the hearing before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar that respondent had been named the sole beneficiary of Mrs. Berning's will and had not prepared the will.

Mrs. Berning had a $70,000 money market certificate of deposit issued by the Fifth Third Bank in Cincinnati. When the certificate of deposit matured in March 1982, respondent handled the redemption of the certificate at the bank without Mrs. Berning's presence. He received a cashier's check for $70,000 payable to Mrs. Berning, and it was alleged that he undertook a crude attempt to imitate her signature on the back of the check as an endorsement. The following day respondent deposited the endorsed check into his personal account. Approximately three weeks later, respondent purchased a new residence, using the $70,000 redemption proceeds and another $15,000 sum from an earlier redemption of a certificate of deposit belonging to Mrs. Berning. Mrs. Berning had endorsed the $15,000 check and conveyed it to respondent as a loan.

In December 1982, Mrs. Berning asked respondent and the bank to provide her with an itemization of her certificates of deposit. In February 1984, the Cincinnati Police Department was contacted. This ultimately led to respondent's prosecution on theft, forgery and uttering charges. Respondent repaid Mrs. Berning the entire balance of $85,000 on February 15, 1984, twelve days after his arrest.

At his trial to the bench, respondent testified that Mrs. Berning had offered to lend him the money so that he could buy a house, with the understanding that we would repay her without interest when she needed the funds. Respondent stated that he had sent Mrs. Berning a thank you card, expressing his appreciation for her generosity in loaning him the money. Mrs. Berning testified that she had destroyed any cards or other documents that would remind her of respondent. She contended that respondent had taken the money without any authority.

The record indicated that respondent had no written authority, power of attorney, or any other memorandum from Mrs. Berning authorizing his personal use of the $70,000. The record revealed further that the loan application submitted by the respondent for the purchase of his new residence made no mention of a "loan" from Mrs. Berning. The trial court found respondent guilty of theft, forgery and uttering and sentenced respondent to a one-year term of imprisonment.

Respondent's convictions were affirmed by the court of appeals over a strong dissenting opinion. See State v. Woods (1985), 25 Ohio App.3d 35. This court then declined to accept jurisdiction of respondent's appeal.

On December 12, 1984, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, relator herein, filed a complaint against respondent. On the basis of respondent's convictions, the complaint alleged that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(1), which provides that a lawyer shall not violate a Disciplinary Rule; DR 1-102(A)(3), which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude; DR 1-102(A)(4), which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and DR 1-102(A)(6), which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

At the hearing on the complaint, held before a panel of the board of commissioners, respondent was not present, but was represented by counsel. Counsel urged the board to impose a sanction which would permit respondent to have an opportunity to return to the practice of law in the future.

Upon consideration of the evidence, the board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(1), (3), (4) and (6). The board recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in this state.