196 N.E.2d 784
D.D. No. 47Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided March 4, 1964.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Mingling client’s funds with own — Disciplinary action — Public reprimand — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The relator, the Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint against the respondent, Thomas J. Robinson, setting forth, as follows, three specific charges of misconduct:
1. That respondent was hired by one Thomas J. Roberts, Canton, Ohio, who had sold property on a land contract to one Bertha Jones, Cleveland, Ohio, to make collections and remit them to Roberts, and that respondent did make collections on said account but failed to remit them promptly and converted a substantial amount thereof to his own personal use.
2. That Roberts sold real property in Cleveland to one Tinsley McKinney, on which he received a first mortgage and promissory note, that he hired respondent to make collections on such mortgage, and that respondent made collections thereon but did not remit them and converted a substantial part of such collections to his own personal use.
3. That the collections made on the Jones and McKinney accounts approximated $1,170, more or less, over the period from October 1960 to January 1962, which moneys were not remitted to Roberts but were converted by respondent without the permission, consent and knowledge of Roberts.
The hearing before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline did not last long, the transcript of the evidence, consisting of a long and detailed stipulation of facts and the testimony of respondent, embracing only 28 pages. The facts disclosed are that respondent was admitted to the practice of law in 1954; that he was also a licensed real estate broker and maintained a separate office for his real estate business under the name of Continental Realty Company; that he negotiated the sale of Roberts’ property to Jones as a real estate
Page 537
broker, for which he charged a broker’s commission but made no charge for drawing up the land contract; that thereafter Roberts authorized him to receive moneys owing under the contract and to remit collections to Roberts; that later Roberts authorized respondent to receive moneys owing on the first mortgage and note and to remit collections from McKinney to Roberts; that between October 1960 and October 1961 respondent collected $1,170 in payments from Jones and McKinney, which he had not remitted to Roberts prior to January 1962, when Roberts filed a complaint with the Cleveland Bar Association, and which respondent had deposited in his real estate company bank account; and that prior to the hearing date of March 11, 1963, respondent had remitted to Roberts $900 of the amount due, leaving an unpaid balance of $270.
Testifying in his own behalf, respondent candidly admitted the facts as stipulated, stating as the reason for his conduct, “I became careless, and, of course, he [Roberts] never did demand the payments promptly, so, therefore, it just slipped into a pattern. It was probably carelessness on my part.”
Respondent’s sole contention is that in receiving and depositing the funds due Roberts he was acting as a collecting agent in connection with his real estate business and not as an attorney at law, and he assured the board that he would make payment of the $270 balance due within the next two days.
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found respondent guilty of misconduct and recommended that he be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.
The matter is before this court for consideration of the findings and recommendation of the board and the respondent’s objections thereto.
Mr. Lawrence E. Stewart and Mr. Clarence H. Holmes, for relator.
Mr. Louis Stokes, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
There is a complete lack of any evidence of misconduct on the part of respondent other than the two dealings with Roberts. This is his first act of misconduct. We feel that the seriousness of the position in which respondent now
Page 538
finds himself has been brought home to him to the degree that a public reprimand will be an adequate discipline and will secure the public and the Bar from the danger of repetition of such misconduct or of any other breach of professional conduct on the part of respondent.
It is ordered that respondent be publicly reprimanded.
Public reprimand ordered.
ZIMMERMAN, O’NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.
TAFT, C.J., concurs except to the extent that the judgment fails to follow the recommendation of suspension for an indefinite period.
MATTHIAS, J., not participating.