181 N.E.2d 469
D.D. No. 20Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided April 4, 1962.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disciplinary action.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The relator, the Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint against the respondent, charging him with misconduct as an attorney. A hearing was had before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The board found that respondent has been guilty of misconduct as defined in Section
Page 269
5 of Rule XXVII of the Rules of Practice of this court.
The respondent was employed by the heirs of a decedent and was paid to negotiate a settlement of a claim of the state Department of Mental Hygiene and Correction against the estate of the decedent. He advised the heirs that the claim had been compromised. The proceeds of the estate were then distributed among the heirs. The state refused the tendered settlement. The payment in full of the state’s claim would have practically exhausted the estate.
Respondent was instrumental in the preparation and filing of questionable claims of the wives of the heirs for nursing services rendered the decedent, and he advised witnesses called to appear before the court in connection with the approval of such claims.
The court refused to approve the claims, and the heirs refused to return their distributive shares received from the state so that the claim of the state could be paid in full. The administrator’s bonding company was required to pay the balance of the claim due the state and took judgment for the amount so paid under its bond and levied on the administrator’s property.
Respondent thereafter negotiated a settlement directly with the bonding company by paying out of his own funds $3,500 to the bonding company.
Respondent is also charged with encroaching on the business of the lawyer acting as attorney for the estate. Respondent received nothing from the estate or the heirs except for his services in attempting to negotiate a settlement with the state. He contends that at the time the heirs came to see him they advised him that the attorney acting for the estate had been paid for his services and discharged.
Respondent has practiced law in Toledo since 1932, and this is the first instance in which he has been cited to the bar association upon any grievance.
The matter is now before this court for consideration of the report of the board of commissioners.
Mr. Clarence M. Condon, for relator.
Mr. M.L. Okun, for respondent.
Page 270
Per Curiam.
After a careful review of the record, this court is of the opinion that the discipline to be administered should be a public reprimand, and it is so ordered.
Judgment accordingly.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, BELL, KERNS and O’NEILL, JJ., concur.
TAFT, J., concurs in the judgment.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN and TAFT, JJ., concur for the additional reason that counsel for the relator expressed the view in open court that a public reprimand is sufficient.
KERNS, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of HERBERT, J.