Summary
sanctioning probate attorney for failure to investigate whether decedent was survived by next of kin and failure to properly inventory decedent's bank accounts
Summary of this case from Kelly v. Cuomo (In re Cuomo)Opinion
D.D. No. 86-36
Decided August 26, 1987.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Handling legal matter without adequate preparation — Neglect of legal matter — Engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude — Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud or misrepresentation.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
On April 17, 1986, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint against respondent, Dennis Wroblewski, alleging three specifications of misconduct. With the exception of a few minor details, respondent admitted the allegations made in the complaint. A hearing was held before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline on August 22, 1986. During this proceeding, respondent and his counsel consistently acknowledged the truth of the complaint's allegations and presented no defense to their content. All the allegations revolve around the administration of a single decedent's estate, that of Victor L. Kozlowski.
Specification No. 1 of the complaint alleged that respondent made no attempt, when preparing probate documents, to determine whether Kozlowski, a deaf-mute who died January 3, 1985, was survived by next of kin. Specifically, respondent did not file a Complaint for Petition of Heirship before notifying the probate court that Kozlowski had no surviving spouse, next of kin legatees or devisees. Although he died intestate, childless and subsequent to his wife's demise, the deceased was survived by next of kin. The Toledo Bar Association charged that respondent's conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(2) (handling a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances) and DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him).
Specification No. 2 incorporated the averments of the first count and further charged that respondent failed to include in the inventory and appraisal of the Kozlowski estate a 1975 Jeep Wagoneer and a 1985 Renault Encore automobile. Nor did respondent include in the estate inventory a complete identification and value of tangible personal property which was owned by the decedent at the time of his death. Indeed, respondent transferred the Renault valued at $5,500 to his wife in her maiden name for $1,500 and apparently failed to pay even this amount into the estate. Moreover, Kozlowski, an avid hobbyist, possessed substantial photographic and machine tool equipment which respondent did not account for in the inventory.
Specification No. 2 also alleged that respondent prepared an Ohio estate tax release showing Kozlowski's savings account as having a value of $8,507.15 as of January 18, 1985, when, in fact, respondent closed the account on that day and received a money order in the amount of $86,460.75. Likewise, respondent completed the inventory and appraisal and the Ohio estate tax return by showing the savings account's value as $8,507.15 on these forms, rather than the correct figure, $86,460.75. Relator charged that respondent's actions in these matters violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude); DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law). The Toledo Bar Association claimed this conduct also ran afoul of DR 7-102(A)(3) (concealing or knowingly failing to disclose that which he is required by law to reveal); DR 7-102(A)(4) (knowingly using perjured testimony or false evidence); DR 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of law or fact); and DR 7-102(A)(8) (knowingly engaging in other illegal conduct or conduct contrary to a Disciplinary Rule); as well as DR 9-102(B)(3) (failing to maintain complete records of all funds, securities and other properties of a client coming into the possession of the lawyer and to render appropriate accounts to his clients).
Finally, Specification No. 3 alleged that after knowingly failing to report the 1985 Renault to the probate court, respondent transferred the automobile to his wife for the $1,500 previously mentioned without a court order, and thereafter failed to deposit that amount into the estate. Furthermore, respondent submitted under oath on the certificate of title that he received $1,500 for the vehicle. Relator asserted these actions violated DR 1-102(A)(1) (violating a Disciplinary Rule); DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude); DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct of dishonesty, fraud or misrepresentation); and DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law).
The board found that respondent had committed all the disciplinary infractions alleged. The panel noted, however, that respondent or his prior law firm had reimbursed the Kozlowski estate for all fees and interest lost as of the hearing date and that he had been cooperative in the effort to properly marshal and account for the decedent's assets. The board thereafter recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Marshall Melhorn, Richard M. Kerger and Edward J. McCormick, Jr., for relator.
Connelly, Soutar Jackson and William M. Connelly, for respondent.
This court finds that respondent violated the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules. The evidence, particularly respondent's explanation of and admission to each charge, albeit apologetic, demonstrates a pattern of neglect and, at times, patent misrepresentation. Had respondent's conduct gone undetected, his client's estate would have been improperly administered at best, and at worst, not at all. It is noted that respondent has acquiesced in the board's recommendation.
Accordingly, this court hereby adopts the board's recommendation and respondent is hereby ordered indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.