Opinion
D.D. No. 80-8
Decided June 11, 1980.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
This cause came on for hearing January 7, 1980, in Akron, before the duly appointed hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The hearing in Akron was conducted in private, as requested by respondent, Timothy J. Murty.
The complaint charged respondent with having entered a plea of guilty before the United States Magistrate for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Case No. CR79-45A, to an Information charging him with knowingly representing, with intent to defraud, that the proceeds of a $5,000 property improvement loan, insured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, would be used to remodel certain property, whereas he knew that the loan proceeds would be used for other purposes, in violation of Section 1012, Title 18, U.S. Code. Respondent was fined $1,000 and placed on probation for one year.
Relator's complaint further charged that respondent violated DR 1-102(A), as follows:
"A lawyer shall not:
"* * *
"(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."
Counsel for respondent filed an answer, stating in substance that respondent's violation of the above specified section amounted to a petty or minor offense and did not involve moral turpitude.
Respondent was summarily suspended from the practice of law under Gov. R. V(8).
Presentation of evidence at the hearing before the panel of the board revealed that on or about March 9, 1974, respondent and his wife made applications to the First National Bank of Akron to borrow home improvement funds in the sum of $9,000 on two properties — $5,000 on a Storer Avenue property, the respondent's residence, and $4,000 on a Gaylord Avenue property. A contractor's estimate of the cost of specific improvements was attached to the applications. Respondent and his wife received the funds following the processing of the loans and deposited the funds to their account with the same bank.
Thereafter, the $9,000 was withdrawn from the account by respondent's wife, with respondent's consent, and applied to the downpayment on the purchase of a property located on Jefferson Avenue, which they had contracted to buy prior to the loan application. Respondent had other funds available for the downpayment, but used the First National funds to expedite the Jefferson Avenue closing because he and his wife were in the process of closing out their account, and moving it to the Goodyear Bank which had required him to do such as part of still another loan package. The Storer Avenue and Gaylord Avenue properties were partially improved and then the Storer Avenue property was sold in an "as is" condition by respondent. The Jefferson Avenue property, which became the new residence of the respondent, was also improved. The loan for the Storer Avenue property was not repaid upon its sale, but both loans were repaid in full over the original term of the loans.
It is noted that these were properties owned by the respondent and his wife, and that no part of these transactions involved a lawyer-client relationship.
The record discloses that the guilty plea was made by respondent as a result of plea bargaining on the advice of his attorney, and dictated by his desire to avoid any indictment of his wife or others. Respondent also wished to avoid any adverse publicity resulting from a trial of the issues.
The hearing resulted in a finding that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) as charged. The Grievance Committee of the Akron Bar Association recommended respondent be given a public reprimand, and the board of commissioners concurred.
Mr. Frank H. Harvey, Jr., Mr. Duane Isham and Mr. Harold F. White, for relator.
Mr. John M. Glenn, Mr. John L. Reyes and Mr. Robert M. Gippin, for respondent.
"One of the fundamental tenets of the professional responsibility of a lawyer is 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.
Notwithstanding respondent's contention that violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) amounted to only a minor offense, minus any moral turpitude, the propriety required of respondent by the legal profession, encompassing his overall conduct under these circumstances, was violated.
Therefore, having reviewed the findings of fact and recommendation of the board, as well as the documentation and other evidence presented, it is found that respondent did violate DR 1-102(A)(4).
It is the judgment of this court that respondent receive a public reprimand, and it is so ordered.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.