155 N.E.2d 922
D.D. No. 8Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided February 4, 1959.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disciplinary action — Severity of discipline — Public reprimand.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The relator, the Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint against respondent, an attorney at law, charging him with misconduct within the meaning of subdivision 5 of Rule XXVII of the Rules of Practice of this court.
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, after consideration of the matter, found that a client of respondent turned over to him, as her attorney, $128.50 in currency for the purpose of having it delivered by respondent to a realty company as a monthly payment on a land contract for real estate purchased by the client; that the following month the client delivered to respondent an additional sum of $128.50 in currency for the same purpose; that respondent did not deliver the money or any part of it to the realty company; that demands were made upon respondent for the repayment of the money by the client and also by the attorney for the realty company; and that respondent thereafter delivered to an attorney employed by respondent’s client to represent her in the matter three checks for the sums of $150, $75, and $30, respectively, and two dollars in cash. None of the checks was the personal check of respondent.
The board determined from the foregoing findings that respondent was guilty of misconduct as defined by subdivision 5 of Rule XXVII and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period, subject only to reinstatement as provided in Rule XXVII.
The cause is before this court on respondent’s objections to the recommendation of the board. Respondent prays that the recommendation of the board be not confirmed and that he be given a reprimand from the court for his conduct in this matter, and for such other and further relief as may be in keeping with equity and good conscience.
Page 482
Mr. William J. Kraus, Mr. David K. Ford and Mr. J. Craig McClelland, for relator.
Messrs. Watson Lewis, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Although we do not condone in the slightest degree the misconduct of respondent, we are of the opinion that, under the circumstances of this case and in view of the previous good conduct of respondent as revealed by the record, the discipline recommended by the board is unduly severe. Such discipline is therefore reduced to a public reprimand, conditioned upon respondent’s paying all the costs of the proceeding instituted as a result of his misconduct, including any expense incurred by his client in obtaining the refund of her money.
The report of the board, as modified, is confirmed and judgment is rendered accordingly.
Report modified and, as modified, confirmed and judgment accordingly.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, MATTHIAS, BELL and HERBERT, JJ., concur.
TAFT, J., dissents from that part of the judgment which modifies the report of the board.