Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                  OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ALLISON.
             [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Two-year suspension with second year of
        suspension stayed on condition—Engaging in conduct involving
        dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Engaging in conduct
        prejudicial to the administration of justice—Engaging in conduct
        adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—Charging an illegal or
        clearly excessive fee—Failure to promptly pay or deliver client’s funds.
       (No. 00-782—Submitted July 6, 2000—Decided November 8, 2000.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-32.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} On June 7, 1999, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint charging respondent, Paul Wesley Allison of Fostoria, Ohio, Attorney

 with violating a number of Disciplinary Rules while
representing a decedent’s estate in Seneca County. Respondent failed to answer
the complaint, and relator filed a motion for default, which was referred to Master
Commissioner Harry W. White.
        {¶ 2} Based on the complaint and a deposition of the respondent, the master
commissioner found that the complaint centered on respondent’s representation of
the estate of Lee W. Munro, who died December 11, 1996. After the decedent’s
sister disclaimed any right to inherit, her son and a Charles E. Hohman, decedent’s
nephew, became the sole heirs of the estate. The probate court appointed Mr.
Hohman commissioner and fiduciary of the estate, while respondent served as
attorney for the estate.
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




          {¶ 3} The master commissioner further found that after Hohman established
a checking account for the estate on which only he had signature authority,
respondent persuaded Hohman to provide him with estate account checks that
Hohman signed, but otherwise left blank. In January 1997, Hohman issued a check
to the respondent in the amount of $1,000 for legal fees for work on the estate. In
addition, he issued four estate-account checks payable to the respondent in the
amounts of $500, $1,000, $2,000, and $2,500, for a total amount of $6,000.
Hohman signed at least two of those checks in blank.
          {¶ 4} In a report of distributions from the estate filed with the Seneca
County Probate Court, respondent indicated that he had received only $1,000 as
attorney fees for work on the estate. In the report, respondent did not include any
reference to three of four checks made payable to him and listed the $2,500 check
as a payment to the heir. The probate court approved the report as filed but did not
approve legal fees in excess of $1,000. In December 1997, respondent agreed to
repay the $6,000 in excess of the $1,000 fee approved by the probate court, but by
January 28, 2000, respondent had not repaid any portion of the $6,000 sum.
          {¶ 5} The master commissioner concluded that respondent’s misconduct
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation), DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice), DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely
reflecting on fitness to practice law), DR 2-106(A) (charging an illegal or clearly
excessive fee), and DR 9-102(B)(4) (failure to promptly pay or deliver client’s
funds).
          {¶ 6} The master commissioner recommended that the respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years with one year stayed
upon the condition that the $6,000 be repaid.
          {¶ 7} The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the master commissioner, with the added provision that the one-year stay be




                                          2
                               January Term, 2000




conditioned upon repayment being made during the first year of the two-year
suspension.
                              __________________
       Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, John K. McManus and Stacy
Solochek Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
                              __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 8} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a
period of two years, with the second year of the suspension stayed upon repayment
of the sum of $6,000 within the first year of the suspension. Failure to repay the
full amount within one year will result in the reinstatement of respondent’s stayed
suspension. Costs are taxed to respondent.
                                                            Judgment accordingly.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                              __________________




                                       3