Opinion
D.D. No. 100
Decided April 8, 1970.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct warranting disbarment from practice of law — Misuse of client's money.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Relator, the Mahoning County Bar Association, filed a complaint against George M. Alexander, respondent, an attorney at law duly admitted to practice in Ohio, charging him with misconduct in applying $4,000 of a client's funds for respondent's personal benefit; in refusing to return $12,000 of a client's money until faced with prosecution for embezzlement; in failing to place a minor's settlement funds in a guardianship bank account, pursuant to order of court, until confronted by his client and an officer of the court approximately four years after such account should have been established; in representing to a client that he had expended $5,500 of her money in the purchase of a home for her, whereas he had actually purchased the property in his own name and caused a $10,000 mortgage to be placed thereon; in accepting $4,300 from a client for the purpose of paying expenses of an estate administration and certain death expenses, but failing to pay such bills and expenses for two and one-half years and then issuing a check which was properly dishonored for want of sufficient funds; and in accepting $1,800 from a client for the purpose of redeeming said client's realty, but failing to apply such funds for that purpose and refusing to return them for approximately two years.
Mr. Eldon S. Wright and Mr. John D. Liber, for relator.
Mr. George M. Alexander and Mr. George E. Tyack, for respondent.
Canon No. 11 of our Canons of Professional Ethics provides:
"The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client.
"Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly, and should not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him."
From an examination of the voluminous transcript of the evidence and the exhibits, we find that the charges against this respondent are amply supported by the record. Respondent has clearly, repeatedly and flagrantly violated Canon No. 11.
Respondent's reliance upon his constitutional right to refuse to testify in these proceedings was at all times respected.
Respondent argues that laches is a good defense against charges V and VI. We need not pass up this contention, since his misconduct under the other charges is fully supported by the record.
Respondent also contends that the burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings necessitates the adduction of either clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case at bar, this question is academic. Respondent's misconduct has been established beyond any reasonable doubt, irrespective of whether that quantum of evidence was or was not required.
Pursuant to Section (6) (a), Rule XVIII of this court, respondent is permanently disbarred from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
O'NEILL, C.J., LEACH, SCHNEIDER, HERBERT, DUNCAN and CORRIGAN, JJ., concur.
CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT participated in this case which was, however, decided after his death.
LEACH, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for MATTHIAS, J.