492 N.E.2d 449
No. 85-47Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided May 14, 1986.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Conversion of funds.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
The essential facts of this case are not in dispute. Respondent, Howard M. Sanders, was appointed ancillary administrator of the estate of Lucille Lepore in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Probate Division. Specifically, he was to administer the sale of real estate and distribute the sale proceeds in accordance with court procedure. Respondent sold the property and deposited the sale proceeds in a fiduciary account.
Respondent subsequently converted some of the sale proceeds to his own use. The probate court removed respondent as ancillary administrator and appointed attorney Charles J. Neuger to replace him. Neuger filed a complaint for concealing assets against respondent who eventually resolved the matter to the economic satisfaction of Neuger and the probate court.
Relator, Bar Association of Greater Cleveland, brought this disciplinary action against respondent alleging violations of the Disciplinary Rules, and recommended that he be indefinitely suspended
Page 6
from the practice of law. After considering the matter, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar found that respondent had violated DR 9-102(B)(4) and 1-102(A)(4).[1]
The board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
“(B) A lawyer shall:
“* * *
“(4) Promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by the client the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive.”
DR 1-102(A)(4) states:
“(A) A lawyer shall not:
“* * *
“(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
William Brenner, Richard J. DiSantis and Ronald E. Fetterman, for relator.
Michael R. Szolosi and Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
After a thorough examination of the record, we concur with the findings of the board. It is important to note that the board found that respondent “* * * cooperated fully with Relator and its counsel in marshalling the facts with respect to the events that gave rise to these proceedings and displayed professional candor in attempting to have this matter fully and fairly resolved.” The board also found that respondent “* * * clearly demonstrated his remorse for his prior conduct and clearly established sincere intentions on his part to avoid any such behavior in the future.” In light of these findings, we concur with the recommendation of the board and not the relator with regard to sanctions.
It is, therefore, the judgment of this court that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio for a period of one year.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.
Page 7