 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cleveland Bar Association v. Belock6/10/1998
the settlement, but never received them. The panel concluded that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5), and (6), and 9-102(A), (B)(3), and (4), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and V(6)(A)(1).
Count six of the complaint charged that respondent's plea of guilty to "mail fraud" and "false statements to the government" in June 1996 constituted violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) and Gov.Bar R. V(6)(A)(1). The panel agreed.
The panel found that the relator failed to prove counts three and five of the complaint by clear and convincing evidence.
In mitigation, the panel found that respondent had worked as an attorney for eighteen years without a blemish on his record, that he was courteous to the panel, and that he demonstrated skill as a litigator. Evidence indicated that because respondent's life had been threatened by a former client with mob connections, respondent went into hiding and during that time used client funds for his own personal use and benefit. Respondent also offered the testimony of a client, a former cellmate, and a relative with respect to respondent's good character and competence, and pointed out that during the time he was in hiding, his wife had serious medical problems that required three emergency operations.
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board adopted the findings, Conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
After reviewing the record in this case, we have adopted the findings and Conclusions of the board, but not its recommendation. We do not accept respondent's claim that the extenuating circumstances justified his use of client funds. No circumstances ever justify the deliberate misappropriation of client's funds for a lawyer's personal benefit.
The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases. We have previously held that the appropriate discipline when a lawyer knowingly converts client funds is disbarrment. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Churilla (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 348, 678 N.E.2d 515. We adhere to that position in this case. Respondent is disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
|