404 N.E.2d 750
D.D. No. 80-7Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided May 21, 1980.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
This cause came to be heard in Cleveland on January 18, 1980, before the duly-appointed panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. Respondent, Leo Canales, was neither present at the hearing nor represented by counsel; however, notice of said hearing was sent by certified mail to respondent at his last known address, P.O. Box 145, Rusk, Texas, and to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Moreover, in its opening statement, relator, the Bar Association of Greater Cleveland, noted that numerous certified letters were sent to respondent at the above address. Some of these letters were signed for by Canales’ wife, Stella, while others were returned as “Unclaimed.” Relator futher introduced a number of copies of such letters and return receipts in evidence.
The board summarized the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing as follows:
“That the respondent, Leo Canales, undertook to represent Valdemar Santana to recover property damages as a result of an automobile accident on August 3, 1974. Santana’s automobile was struck by a hit and run driver on August 3, 1974, and through the use of a license plate number, the driver was identified. Santana was referred by a Legal Aid Clinic in Cleveland to the office of Leo Canales. On or about April 16, 1975, the respondent, Leo Canales, agreed to represent Valdemar Santana. At that time, Santana paid Canales $17 for court costs and $2 for the accident report. Santana was told by Canales that he could recover for him $800, and that the attorney fees would be paid from the $800. Santana had no further contact with Canales until 1976. At that time, Canales told Santana that he had recovered $200 and that he had $200
Page 208
in his possession and he would pay Santana his share when he had recovered the entire amount. Santana testified that he, Santana, over a period of one year, went to Canales’ office two or three times a month, with the same result. Canales would promise to pay him his part of the recovery as soon as he had received the entire amount. In March of 1977, Santana went to the attorney’s office and found a sign on the door, stating the office was closed. Upon obtaining Canales’ home address, Santana visited Canales’ home and spoke to Leo Canales and was introduced to his wife, Stella. He was told by Canales, that Canales was going to Texas for three months, and as soon as he returned, he would finalize this case and Santana would be paid his part of the recovery. Santana has not heard from Canales since. Santana contacted the Bar Association of Greater Cleveland and filed his complaint.”
Based on the above, the board found that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6), in that he engaged in conduct that adversely reflects upon his fitness to practice law; DR 6-101(A)(3), in that he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him; DR 9-102(B)(1), in that respondent did not notify his client of the receipt of his funds; DR 9-102(B)(3), in that he failed to maintain complete records of all funds of his client coming into his possession and to render appropriate accounts to his client; DR 9-102(B)(4), in that he failed to promptly pay or deliver to his client the funds in his possession which his client was entitled to receive.
Upon the filing of the board’s recommendation a show cause order was issued to respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested. The envelope was returned to the post office undelivered. The address used was the same as used by the board. Respondent has never registered as required by Gov. R. VII, and no other address is known.
Mr. Joseph W. Diemert, Jr., for relator.
Per Curiam.
“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
Page 209
reproach. ***” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 77, 81.
Having reviewed the findings and recommendation of the board, it is found that respondent violated the above-cited provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
It is the judgment of this court that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.