403 N.E.2d 199
D.D. No. 80-3Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided April 16, 1980.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The Bar Association of Greater Cleveland, relator herein, filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, pursuant to Gov. R.V, charging John E. Sato, A.K.A. John Henry Sato, respondent herein, with violations of DR 9-102(B)(3), DR 9-102(B)(1) and DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
On June 4, 1979, a copy of the complaint was served on respondent by residence service by the sheriff of Cuyahoga County. On August 8, 1979, a notice of hearing was served on respondent in the same manner. Respondent has failed to file an answer or other responsive pleadings. A letter dated June 27, 1979, sent by respondent on motel stationery from Detroit, Michigan, to relator’s attorney indicates his knowledge of the complaint and proceedings. Nonetheless, respondent did not appear at the hearing personally or by representative, and the matter went forward on evidence adduced by relator.
From evidence introduced by relator through various witnesses, documents and exhibits, the record notes that, on February 21, 1967, respondent was appointed administrator of the estate of Michael Najda. Thereafter, he repeatedly failed to comply with several court citations to file inventory accounts and other appropriate papers on behalf of the estate.
On February 18, 1969, respondent filed a final account which showed distribution of monies to his sister and himself as niece and nephew of the decedent. The account was not accompanied nor supported with appropriate receipts for various other distributions.
Thereafter, exceptions to the account were filed by the heirs of the decedent. A motion to remove respondent as administrator was filed, and a separate heirship proceeding was commenced. On February 21, 1974, the court, by its order,
Page 86
determined that respondent and his sister were not, in fact, related to the decedent and, therefore, were not entitled to inherit from the estate.
On June 28, 1974, respondent was removed as administrator for gross neglect of duty. After respondent’s removal and appointment of a successor administrator, a motion for surcharge against respondent was filed, and upon hearing, the court found, by its order filed on February 28, 1975, that respondent willfully and fraudulently caused a total shortage of $11,239.13.
The bonding company, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, was obligated to pay this amount into the estate and did so shortly thereafter.
None of the sums ordered to be paid by the court have ever been paid by the respondent, and no reimbursement by him has been made to Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland.
The board concluded that the respondent was in violation of DR 9-102(B)(3), DR 9-102(B)(1) and DR 6-101(A)(3) and, pursuant to Gov. R.V, unanimously recommended that the respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.
Mr. Thomas R. Skulina and Mr. Shia M. Shapiro, for relator.
Per Curiam.
Upon examination of the record and the findings of the board of commissioners, we conclude that there are ample facts to justify the board’s finding that respondent violated DR 9-102(B)(3), DR 9-102(B)(1) and DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
We confirm the recommendation of the board, that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.
Page 87