BAR ASSN. v. GARGIULO, 62 Ohio St.2d 239 (1980)


404 N.E.2d 1343

LAKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. GARGIULO.

D.D. No. 80-5Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided May 28, 1980.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Acts warranting.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

This cause came on for hearing before the duly appointed hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline pursuant to a complaint by relator, Lake County Bar Association, charging respondent, William C. Gargiulo, with misconduct.

The charges arose as a result of a series of transactions that respondent was involved in with John C. Yanesh, and James and Betty Thompson. Respondent was first introduced to James Thompson by Yanesh early in 1976. Thompson, a self-employed contractor, was attempting to establish his remodeling business in the Wickliffe, Ohio, area and Yanesh was loaning him money toward that end.

At their initial meeting, respondent loaned $3,000 to the Thompsons at the urging of Yanesh. In return respondent received a cognovit note in that amount. Yanesh at the same time received a cognovit note for $2,800 from the Thompsons in consideration of past loans. In addition, two parcels of property owned by Thompson and his wife were deeded over to Yanesh and respondent as grantees. This property was conveyed by warranty deed, not by mortgage deed. Thompson and his wife allegedly failed to understand this transaction and did not realize that the property was being deeded outright.

The agreement prepared by respondent to encompass this transaction clearly demonstrates that respondent was not acting solely in a business capacity. It provided that respondent’s law firm was to receive attorney fees from James Thompson for legal services rendered in this transaction.

On June 8, 1978, Yanesh and respondent sold, for $29,000, one of the parcels of property that had been transferred to them by the Thompsons. Out of these proceeds the two received $8,082.87, with respondent recovering the money that he

Page 240

had loaned the Thompsons at eight percent interest. Thompson and his wife were then apparently advised that their loan had been paid in full. The remaining parcel of property, however, was not transferred back to the Thompsons. Respondent, instead, later conveyed his interest to Yanesh, apparently without the knowledge or consent of the Thompsons.

Broadview Savings Loan Association subsequently filed a foreclosure action against this same property. Respondent became enmeshed in the foreclosure action, filing an answer on behalf of himself and filing a cross-complaint against Thompson and his wife. He also filed an answer on behalf of Yanesh, cross-complaining against the Thompsons, and filed an answer on behalf of the Thompsons, with a cross-complaint filed against Yanesh. Later, respondent withdrew his own answer and cross-complaint filed against the Thompsons, admitting that there was no money owed him from either Thompson or his wife.

The board concluded that respondent was in violation of several Disciplinary Rules, including: DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6); DR 5-104(A); DR 5-105(A) and (B); DR 7-101(A)(3) and DR 7-102(A)(2), (3) and (5). Pursuant to Gov. R.V, the board recommended that respondent be given a public reprimand.

Mr. Ralph V. Greene and Mr. Leo R. Collins, for relator.

Messrs. Turi Adelman and Mr. Louis A. Turi, Jr., for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The evidence indicates that respondent did not benefit financially from the transactions that serve as the basis of this disciplinary action. Further, it appears that respondent acted neither maliciously nor for gain. Yet, respondent was involved in an obvious conflict of interest situation and there are indications of overreaching in these transactions.

“One of the fundamental tenets of the professional responsibility of a lawyer is that he should maintain a degree of personal and professional integrity that meets the highest standard. The integrity of the profession can be maintained only if the conduct of the individual attorney is above reproach. ***”Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 77, 81.

Having reviewed the findings of fact of the board, as well

Page 241

as the documentation and argument presented to this court, it is found that respondent did violate the above cited provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

We, therefore, confirm the recommendation of the board that respondent, William Gargiulo, be publicly reprimanded. It is so ordered.

Judgment accordingly.

CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.