 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dayton Bar Association v. Buren.12/30/1998
ging in other illegal conduct or conduct contrary to a Disciplinary Rule).
In November 1994, Buren established the law firm of Bruce A. Buren & Associates, L.P.A., in which he was the sole shareholder. Buren employed Isabel Suarez as the managing associate attorney for the firm. As part of her employment contract, Suarez, as the attorney for personal injury claimants, assigned the proceeds from twelve personal injury cases she had pending at the time of her hiring. From December 1984 through February 1995, Suarez settled these cases and deposited the settlement proceeds in the firm's IOLTA trust account. Suarez diverted over $28,000 in trust funds that were to pay healthcare providers' claims for medical services to the personal injury claimants. She transferred the money to the firm's operating account, and the funds were used to pay firm debts.
In a disciplinary case brought against Suarez, she testified that she transferred the funds to the firm's operating account at Buren's direction. Disciplinary Counsel v. Suarez (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 4, 701 N.E.2d 683. According to Suarez, Buren was also involved in a check-kiting scheme and had applied for a credit card using her name as a co-applicant without her authorization. Buren testified in the disciplinary case that he never advised Suarez to transfer the money and that he fired Suarez upon discovering the illegal diversion of trust funds. But Buren never replaced the money in the trust account and never reimbursed the medical providers for services rendered to the personal injury claimants.
The panel concluded that Buren's actions concerning the diversion of money from his law firm's IOLTA trust account violated DR 9-102(A) (failing to deposit funds of a client in a bank account where no funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm are deposited), 9-109(B)(3) (failing to maintain complete records of funds coming into his possession and failing to render an appropriate accounting regarding them), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay to client funds in his possession to which the client is entitled to receive).
Patricia Segal paid Buren a retainer of $750 to probate the estate of Virgil Lee Mullins. Shortly thereafter, Buren vacated his office and disconnected his telephone without leaving any forwarding address. Segal eventually hired different counsel to provide the services for which Buren had been paid.
The panel concluded that Buren violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him) by not providing Segal with the requested services. The panel further concluded that Buren violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). The panel recommended that Buren be disbarred from the practice of law.
The board adopted the findings, Conclusions, and recommendation of the panel, and further recommended that the costs of the proceedings be taxed to Buren.
We concur with the findings, Conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Buren engaged in a continuing course of deceit, misrepresentation, and neglect of duty to his clients and the bankruptcy court. In addition, Buren has failed to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings. Under these circumstances, disbarrment is the appropriate sanction. See, e.g., Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Churilla (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 348, 350, 678 N.E.2d 515, 516-517; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Brown (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 345, 678 N.E.2d 513. Buren is hereby 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.
|