The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 78 Ohio St.3d 497.]
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION V. ARMON.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Armon, 1997-Ohio-59.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Permanent disbarment—Appropriation of client
funds and a pattern of neglect of client interests—Failing to cooperate in
disciplinary investigation.
(No. 96-2785—Submitted February 19, 1997—Decided June 4, 1997.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-26.
__________________
{¶ 1} On April 15, 1996, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging that on ten separate occasions respondent, Joseph J. Armon of
Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0032181, neglected client matters
entrusted to him in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3). Relator charged that on two of
these occasions respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflected on his
fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6). The relator also alleged that
with respect to all matters charged respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by
failing to cooperate in the investigations. Respondent did not answer or respond to
the complaint, and on October 3, 1996 relator filed a motion for default judgment.
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court (“board”) found that respondent, given adequate notice of the
complaint, failed to answer or otherwise plead. Based on the complaint, the motion
for default judgment, and attached affidavits, the panel found with respect to Count
One that sometime after July 1986, Shelia Smith retained respondent to file a
personal injury action. Respondent did not respond to Smith’s inquiries about the
status of the case in 1993 and did not turn the file over to a new attorney after Smith
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
discharged him in March 1994. The new attorney discovered that respondent had
not pursued the case.
{¶ 3} With respect to Count Two, the panel found that Patricia Ricca
retained respondent to file a personal injury claim relating to an accident that
occurred on April 9, 1987. On August 8, 1989, it appears Ricca irrevocably
assigned to Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. (“comprehensive”) a portion of
any settlement or judgment up to the amount of her medical expenses paid by
Comprehensive in exchange for Comprehensive’s agreement not to sue her for such
expenses. The assignment was delivered to respondent.
{¶ 4} Respondent failed to respond to Comprehensive’s inquiries about the
assignment in September 1989, May 1990, and November 1993. In May 1994,
Comprehensive again requested information about the assignment, indicating that
if no response was made, it would begin collection proceedings against Ricca.
Respondent failed to return phone calls from Comprehensive, reply to its letters, or
comply with Ricca’s request that he respond. Respondent also failed to respond to
inquiries by relator’s investigator.
{¶ 5} The panel found that, as alleged in Count Three, Antonia Grabowski
paid respondent $750 to defend her and her daughter, Julie Ann Delbaso, in
municipal court in Akron. Respondent filed an appearance, but failed to further
represent Grabowski and Delbaso. As a result, a default judgment was taken
against them. Grabowski, her new attorney, and counsel for relator were all unable
to contact respondent about his actions or obtain a return of Grabowski’s
documents.
{¶ 6} The panel found with respect to Count Four that Kathleen Kraemer
retained respondent in June 1992 to handle her son’s personal injury case.
Respondent failed to return Kraemer’s phone calls and failed to turn over the file
to Kraemer’s new counsel as requested in several letters. Respondent also failed to
respond to investigative inquiries from relator.
2
January Term, 1997
{¶ 7} As alleged in Count Five, the panel found that Stanley Terry retained
respondent in November 1984 to pursue a personal-injury claim. Respondent
received settlement proceeds on September 3, 1987 and March 11, 1988 and failed
to notify respondent or turn the funds over to him. Respondent refused to meet with
Terry or return his calls about the status of his claim. Respondent also failed to
respond to calls or cooperate with relator in its investigation of the matter.
{¶ 8} The panel found that Randa Mina retained respondent in June 1991 to
represent her concerning injuries she sustained in an automobile accident.
Respondent did not respond to Mina’s requests about the status of her case, failed
to respond to the collection agencies that were contacting Mina, and failed to
respond to a doctor’s request for confirmation that he was representing Mina. In
fact, respondent did not file the case until May 1993. In June 1994, respondent told
Mina that her case would be settled within a couple of months. Mina’s new
counsel, whom she hired after discharging respondent in November 1994, found
that as a result of respondent’s failure to appear at a hearing Mina’s case had been
dismissed on March 31, 1994. Respondent did not respond to attempts by the
relator to investigate the matter.
{¶ 9} As alleged in Count Seven, the panel found that after respondent
received $500 from Steven J. Keppler to transfer the residential custody of his son,
Keppler did not hear from respondent. Respondent told Keppler’s former wife that
delay was caused because papers had been lost in the courthouse, when, in fact,
respondent never filed the necessary papers and Keppler’s case was dismissed.
Respondent failed to respond to inquiries by the bar association about the matter.
{¶ 10} With respect to Count Eight, the panel found that E. Anthony
Mirosavich retained respondent in July 1991 to handle the estate of his father in
probate court. Respondent failed to file federal and state tax returns for the estate,
failed to distribute all the assets, and otherwise delayed in handling the case.
Mirosavich discharged respondent on June 3, 1994 and retained a new attorney, but
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
the new attorney was unable to obtain the estate file from respondent. Mirosavich
died on June 11, 1994, and his brother retained the new attorney to continue to
handle the estate. Even after repeated attempts, the new attorney was successful in
obtaining only part of the file from respondent. Respondent failed to respond to
the inquiries of the relator with respect to the matter. The panel found with respect
to Count Nine that respondent’s actions relating to the father’s estate delayed the
handling of Mirosavich’s estate.
{¶ 11} The panel finally found in Count Ten that in October 1992, Doleta
Casteel retained respondent to handle a medical malpractice lawsuit. Although he
filed the case, respondent’s failure to obtain an expert witness within the time
allowed by the court resulted in a dismissal of the proceeding. Respondent failed to
notify Casteel of the dismissal. Casteel obtained the services of a new attorney, but
neither Casteel, the new attorney, nor relator was able to obtain a response from
respondent or reclaim Casteel’s file from him.
{¶ 12} The panel concluded that respondent’s actions and failures to act
violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged and recommended that respondent be
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board adopted the findings,
conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________
Harold H. Reader and Virginia S. Brown, for relator.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 13} This case involves a lawyer who failed in his duty to his clients by
appropriating his clients’ funds, neglecting their interests, and engaging in a pattern
of deceiving them. The number of these incidents indicates that respondent cannot
or will not conform to our required ethical standards. Moreover, respondent has
failed in the duty he owes to his profession to cooperate in disciplinary
investigations.
4
January Term, 1997
{¶ 14} We accept the findings and conclusions of the board. We believe,
however, that conduct such as respondent’s warrants a more severe sanction than
an indefinite suspension. Respondent’s pattern of client neglect and total disregard
of our investigatory process renders him unfit to be continued on the roll of those
who are allowed to engage in the practice of law in Ohio. We have held in many
cases that appropriation of client funds and a pattern of neglect of client interests
warrants disbarment. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Churilla (1997), _____Ohio
St.3d _____, _____N.E.2d ____ ; Columbus Bar Assn. v. Sterner (1996), 77 Ohio
St.3d 164, 167, 672 N.E.2d 633, 635, and cases cited therein. Respondent is hereby
permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ.,
concur.
DOUGLAS and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent and would indefinitely suspend
respondent.
__________________
5