186 N.E.2d 133
D.D. No. 32Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided November 21, 1962.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disciplinary action — Public reprimand.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The relator, the Dayton Bar Association, filed a complaint against the respondent, Earl H. Moore, Jr., setting forth seven specific charges of misconduct. A hearing was had before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Charge No. 1 is that respondent was employed to represent a defendant in a claim for damages; that he permitted a default judgment to be entered against his client and took no action to have such judgment vacated or to appeal from it; and that thereafter he gave his client a check for $50 (as a refund for the retainer fee) on a bank in which respondent had no account at the time. He subsequently made the check good. The board found that respondent was guilty of misconduct in permitting a default judgment to be entered and in taking no action thereafter to have the judgment vacated, and that such conduct was in violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
Charge No. 6 is that respondent signed a retail buyer’s order for an automobile, providing for cash on delivery; and that he took delivery of a new automobile from an automobile agency and in payment therefor gave a personal check for $2,850 drawn on a bank and delivered at a time when respondent did not have sufficient funds on deposit to cover the check. The check was not honored, and numerous promises thereafter to pay were not kept. The automobile was repossessed by the agency and kept until a final settlement was made. The board found that respondent was guilty of misconduct in obtaining delivery of the automobile by issuing a check against an account with insufficient funds, in violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
Charge No. 7 is that respondent delivered two checks to Rike-Kumler Company, one for $150 and one for $50, both of
Page 22
which were returned because of insufficient funds. The evidence discloses that respondent made frequent assurances that the checks would be made good, but at the date of hearing before the board $125 still remained due. The board found that respondent was guilty of the charge of issuing checks against insufficient funds, and that in doing so he was guilty of misconduct in violating the Canons of Professional Ethics.
The board found that charges Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were not supported by sufficient evidence. The board recommended that respondent be given a public reprimand.
The relator submits that a complete review of the testimony will reveal that the board’s findings as to charges Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are contrary to the weight of the evidence, and that the recommendation of the board should be reconsidered.
Messrs. Pickrel, Schaeffer Ebeling, Mr. Gordon H. Savage an Messrs. Harshman, Young, Colvin Alexander, for relator.
Messrs. Turner, Wells, Granzow Spayd and Messrs. Kusworm Kusworm, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
This court, from a careful examination of the record and a consideration of the course of conduct of the respondent, is of the opinion that the board was neither in error nor unreasonable in its findings or recommendation. Therefore, the report of the board is confirmed, and judgment is rendered accordingly.
Report confirmed and judgment accordingly.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, KERNS, O’NEILL and GRIFFITH, JJ., concur.
KERNS, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of HERBERT, J.
TAFT, J., dissenting.
I dissent for the reason that in my opinion the course of conduct of the respondent as disclosed by the transcript of proceedings before the board of commissioners justifies an indefinite suspension of respondent from the practice of law.
Page 23