488 N.E.2d 215
No. 85-42Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided January 29, 1986.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Failure to promptly pay to client funds due — Failure to maintain separate accounting — Failure to cooperate in investigation.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
The Bar Association of Greater Cleveland, relator, commenced the instant disciplinary proceeding charging respondent, Richard D. Jaeger, with violations of DR 1-102(A)(1) and 9-102(A), (B)(1) and (B)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Gov. Bar R. V(4) and VI(1) and (6). A hearing was held before a three-member panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar (“board”) on June 13, 1985. Respondent was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel.
The facts surrounding the charges are as follows. In October 1978 Darcy D. Brady hired respondent to investigate and manage the estate of Samuel R. Brady, deceased. Respondent produced a document which purports to empower him to conduct an investigation regarding the real estate, personal property and insurance policies of the deceased. The document states in part that Darcy D. Brady authorized and assigned an undivided fifty percent of all property to respondent for the purposes intended and as security for respondent’s fees.
Respondent communicated with the Equitable Life Assurance Company (“Equitable”) regarding an insurance policy which had been owned by the decedent and which, upon his death, became Darcy Brady’s property. Upon the maturing of the policy on January 8, 1982, Equitable forwarded
Page 40
a check in the amount of $11,013.62 payable to Darcy Brady in care of Richard D. Jaeger, attorney at law. Respondent endorsed and then cashed the check. Brady testified that he was not advised by respondent that the check had been received, and he denied that he had provided respondent with any authority to endorse his signature or cash the check. Brady testified that he had made numerous inquiries of respondent concerning the status of the insurance policy but was not provided with any information. Brady eventually contacted Equitable directly and was advised that the check had been sent to respondent.
Respondent claimed that he was entitled to one-half of the insurance proceeds. He further contended that he thought he had provided Brady with an amount approximating one half of the proceeds in a series of payments spanning approximately one and one-half years following respondent’s receipt of the insurance proceeds. However, Brady asserted that he only agreed to attorney fees in an amount equal to twenty-five percent of his father’s estate.
Respondent testified that he placed Brady’s money in his office vault rather than in a trust account because Brady wanted to keep the matter “under the table.” Brady denied the allegation that he wanted to keep the matter hidden.
The first count of relator’s complaint essentially charges respondent with failure to promptly notify Brady that respondent had received the insurance funds; that he failed to promptly deliver to his client the funds due; and that he failed to maintain a separate accounting of client funds.
The board was convinced that respondent had violated DR 9-102(A), (B)(1) and (B)(4) by failing to promptly notify his client that he had received the funds; deliver the funds to the client in a timely manner; maintain a separate accounting as required; and had improperly retained funds belonging to his client.
Count II concerns the investigation by relator of the complaint against respondent filed by Brady. Respondent was contacted on numerous occasions so that respondent could provide documentation to relator’s investigating committee concerning the Brady complaint. Respondent failed to comply with these requests. He was ultimately subpoenaed to a local grievance committee meeting to be held in June 1984 and was to bring all files regarding the Brady matter. He appeared but failed to produce his file, indicating to the committee that he could not locate it. Respondent continually failed to provide certain documentation requested by relator and his explanation that some of his records were probably stolen was not deemed credible by the board.
Based upon the failure of the respondent to make a legitimate effort to cooperate in the investigation, the board found there was a violation of DR 1-102(A)(1).
Count III alleges that the respondent failed to file and pay his attorney registration fee with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio. The staff
Page 41
counsel for relator, Mary L. Cibella, advised the board that there was no record of respondent’s registration fee being paid prior to June 1985. Respondent explained that he had recently sent his registration fee and thought that he did not have to file since he had essentially stopped practicing law in September 1984. The board found there was a technical violation as alleged in Count III of the complaint.
The board recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Avery S. Friedman and John Baker, for relator.
Speck, Wilbur Senn Co., L.P.A., Richard A. Senn and Thomas Blair Wilbur, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
We have carefully considered the board’s report and respondent’s objections thereto. Upon review of the record, we concur with the findings and conclusions of the board.
It is clear that respondent received insurance proceeds belonging to his client, maintained these funds in an inappropriate fashion, and failed to deliver the funds in a timely manner. Respondent violated DR 9-102(A) by failing to preserve the identity of the funds and property of a client; violated DR 9-102(B)(1) by failing to promptly notify the client of receipt of funds; and violated DR 9-102(B)(4) by failing to promptly pay or deliver client funds.
Additionally, we find that respondent failed to cooperate with the investigation as required by Gov. Bar R. V(4) and DR 1-102(A)(1).
Lastly, respondent did not timely register with the Clerk of the Supreme Court as a practicing attorney as required by Gov. Bar R. VI(1) and is thereby subject to discipline pursuant to Gov. Bar R. VI(6) and V.
We agree with the recommendation of the board that the appropriate sanction for respondent’s conduct is an indefinite suspension.
Accordingly, we adopt the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the board and hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for an indefinite period.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.
Page 42