Opinion
No. 91-856
Submitted June 26, 1991 —
Decided October 9, 1991.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 88-21.
On June 21, 1988, relator, Mahoning County Bar Association, filed a complaint against respondent, Richard T. Davis. An amended complaint followed on March 28, 1990, alleging four specifications of misconduct. Specifications one and two involved violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of legal matter entrusted) and 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out contract of employment). Specifications three and four involved violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) (conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law). Respondent filed a timely answer.
Particularly relevant are the incidents giving rise to specifications three and four. With respect to these specifications, counsel for relator and respondent stipulated to a bill of information filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, wherein respondent was charged with: (1) two counts of embezzling approximately $34,000 from two bankruptcy estates while acting as a court-appointed trustee, and (2) one count of fraudulently concealing assets from creditors in three bankruptcy estates. As a part of that proceeding, respondent pleaded guilty to one count of embezzling from a bankruptcy estate in violation of Section 153, Title 18, U.S.Code. In addition to becoming obligated to make restitution, respondent was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment: five months of actual incarceration in a federal correctional facility and the remainder in community confinement. Further, upon release from confinement, respondent was to be placed on supervised release for three years and required to participate in a federal drug abuse treatment program.
Upon notification of respondent's felony conviction, this court on April 12, 1990 indefinitely suspended respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9)(a)(ii) and (iii). Relator's complaint was heard before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("panel") on August 2, 1990. Respondent, who was incarcerated at the time, waived his own appearance and was represented by counsel.
Having stipulated to the relevant facts, counsel for respondent presented two mitigation witnesses, R. Scott Krichbaum and Edward J. Dyer. The latter met respondent while Dyer was clinical director of the substance abuse program at Hillside Hospital. Dyer testified that respondent voluntarily entered the program in the summer of 1989 and was diagnosed at that time as cocaine dependent. Respondent was described as a cooperative client who successfully participated in both in-patient and after-care recovery programs. Dyer felt that respondent had considerable insight into and recognition of his addiction and had a favorable prognosis for recovery.
Krichbaum, a practicing attorney in respondent's community, testified to the close relationship he and respondent developed both personally and professionally. Prior to respondent's dependency problems, Krichbaum stated that respondent was a "very well-respected" attorney. Krichbaum also testified as to the unfavorable changes in respondent's personal and professional demeanor that Krichbaum noticed as early as 1985. Krichbaum concluded by stating that he had absolute confidence in respondent's ability to practice law in the future should respondent conquer his substance abuse problem.
After considering the evidence, the panel concluded that respondent had committed the aforementioned violations involved in specifications three and four of the amended complaint. The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended with no credit given for the time served since the Gov.Bar R. V(9) suspension. Based largely on the testimony of Dyer and Krichbaum, the panel felt that respondent should have the opportunity to request reinstatement at such time as respondent could demonstrate compliance with all requirements of his federal sentence and continuing recovery from his drug abuse problem.
The board adopted the findings and recommendation of the panel, and also recommended that the costs of the proceeding be charged to respondent.
Richard B. Blair, for relator.
Mary Jane Stevens and John B. Juhasz, for respondent.
We adopt the findings and recommendations of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.