Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Permanent disbarment—Willfully concealing and not accounting to probate court and successor administrator for substantial amount of estate assets in the form of stocks and bank accounts—Failing to cooperate in grievance investigation.
.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Permanent disbarment—Willfully concealing
and not accounting to probate court and successor administrator for
substantial amount of estate assets in the form of stocks and bank
accounts—Failing to cooperate in grievance investigation.
(No. 00-784—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. 99-37.
__________________
{¶ 1} On June 7, 1999, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a twocount complaint charging respondent, Joseph Alan Kral of Strongsville, Ohio,
Attorney
Registration No. 0019883,
with numerous violations of Disciplinary
Rules and the Rules for the Government of the Bar. Respondent failed to answer
the complaint, and relator filed a motion for default, which was referred to Master
Commissioner Harry W. White.
{¶ 2} On the basis of the complaint, the master commissioner found that on
October 15, 1991, respondent was appointed attorney-in-fact for Stephen E.
Loughead and gained control of his assets. Respondent periodically provided an
accounting of his transactions on behalf of Stephen Loughead to his principal’s son,
Lawrence.
{¶ 3} Stephen Loughead died on November 23, 1995, and on March 1,
1996, respondent presented the will of Stephen Loughead for probate in Cuyahoga
County. When Lawrence Loughead was appointed executor of the estate, he did
not hire an attorney, and so respondent acted as the attorney for the estate.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 4} After respondent failed to prepare and file a timely accounting on
behalf of the executor, the probate court appointed attorney Michael E. Murman as
successor administrator on June 22, 1998. Upon investigation, Murman determined
that there was no accounting for a substantial amount of estate assets in the form of
stocks and bank accounts that had previously been under the control of respondent.
Murman repeatedly attempted to obtain estate records from respondent but
respondent failed to provide them.
{¶ 5} In August 1998, Murman filed a complaint in the probate court against
respondent and in February 1999, the court found that respondent had willfully
concealed assets of the estate. It entered judgment in favor of Murman as
administrator and against respondent in the amount of $308,612.76.
{¶ 6} The master commissioner further found that after Murman filed a
grievance with relator, respondent failed to respond to relator’s two letters of
inquiry and to two subpoenas duces tecum.
{¶ 7} The master commissioner concluded that respondent’s conduct
violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude),
DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation), DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on
fitness to practice law), DR 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver client
funds), DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice), DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to the attorney), DR
7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of employment for professional
services), DR 7-101(A)(3) (causing prejudice or damage to a client as the result of
a professional relationship), DR 9-102(B)(3) (failing to render appropriate
accounting of client funds), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a
grievance investigation).
{¶ 8} The master commissioner recommended that the respondent be
permanently disbarred from the practice of law.
2
January Term, 2000
{¶ 9} The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the master commissioner.
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, John K. McManus and Stacy
Solochak Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 10} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
board. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in
Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
3
