 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cleveland Bar Association v. Belock6/10/1998
Attorneys at law - Misconduct - Disbarrment - Deliberate misappropriation of client funds for personal benefit.
Submitted March 3, 1998
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-88.
In June 1996, respondent, Dale J. Belock of Morgantown, West Virginia, Attorney Registration No. 0031806, was convicted of two felonies under federal law, and we suspended him for an interim period in accordance with former Gov. Bar R. V(5)(A)(3), now (5)(A)(4). In re Belock (1996), 77 Ohio St. 3d 1427, 670 N.E.2d 1363. On October 15, 1996, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a six-count complaint charging respondent with the violation of several Disciplinary Rules and Rules for the Government of the Bar. After respondent answered, the parties filed agreed stipulations of fact, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board").
With respect to count one of the complaint, the panel found that on July 19, 1994, Lauren M. Erison engaged respondent to represent her in a domestic relations matter. Thereafter, respondent received a check for $29,327.96, representing proceeds from the sale of Erison's house. Erison endorsed the check and respondent agreed to hold the proceeds in escrow until the resolution of a child-support dispute. After the matter was resolved, respondent failed to turn over the proceeds. Respondent later failed to respond to relator's attempt to investigate Erison's grievance.
The panel found with respect to count two of the complaint that in August 1993, respondent agreed to represent Mark Mehnert in a domestic relations matter. Respondent not only failed to notify Mehnert of the final hearing in his divorce case, but also failed to attend the hearing himself. As a result of the divorce proceedings, respondent received $12,400, which he retained in his trust account and failed to turn over to Mehnert. Respondent also failed to respond to relator's inquiries about Mehnert's grievance.
In June 1996, as a result of his guilty plea in United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, respondent was sentenced to sixteen months in a federal correctional institution and ordered to pay $29,327.96 in restitution to Erison and $12,400 in restitution to Mehnert. The panel concluded that respondent's conduct in the Erison and Mehnert matters violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of Justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon the attorney's fitness to practice law), 9-102(A) (failing to deposit client funds in an account where no funds of the lawyer are deposited), 9-102(B)(3) (failing to maintain complete records of all client funds coming into his possession and render an appropriate accounting therefor), 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay to a client funds in his possession which the client is entitled to receive), Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation), and Gov.Bar R. V(6)(A)(1) (conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude).
As to count four of the complaint, the panel found that Mildred Thompson hired respondent to represent her in a personal injury matter. After respondent negotiated a settlement on her behalf, Thompson received a check for $3,348.01, which she took to respondent's office. Respondent deposited the proceeds of the check in his bank account. Thompson contacted respondent several times asking for the proceeds of
Page 1 2 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|