The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 78 Ohio St.3d 75.]
MIAMI COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. HALLOWS.
[Cite as Miami Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hallows, 1997-Ohio-237.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Failing to preserve
identity of funds and property of client—Failing to promptly pay or deliver
client’s funds or properties—Neglecting an entrusted legal matter—
Engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude—Engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice.
(No. 96-2429—Submitted December 11, 1996—Decided March 26, 1997.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-79.
__________________
{¶ 1} In a complaint filed on October 10, 1995, relator, Miami County Bar
Association, charged respondent, L. Craig Hallows of Piqua, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0031350, with violations of DR 9-102(B)(3) (preserving identity
of funds and property of a client), 9-102(B)(4) (promptly paying or delivering to a
client the funds or properties in the possession of the lawyer), 6-101(A)(3)
(neglecting an entrusted legal matter), and 1-102(A)(3), (4), and (5) (engaging in
conduct involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,
or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). On the day of the hearing
before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court (“board”), respondent withdrew a previously filed answer and
admitted all the allegations of the complaint.
{¶ 2} Based on the admissions of respondent and the testimony at the
hearing, the panel found that in the fall of 1993 respondent settled a lawsuit for his
client, Grace Oliver, for $55,000. He paid himself an attorney fee from the
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
settlement, but did not remit the balance to Oliver despite her repeated requests.
Oliver employed another attorney whose efforts to obtain the funds were also
unsuccessful. Only after respondent was subpoenaed in connection with this
disciplinary proceeding did he transmit to Oliver her portion of the settlement
proceeds.
{¶ 3} The panel further found that while guardian of his son, Christian
Hallows, respondent took approximately $58,000 from Hallows’s guardianship
account, and while guardian of an incompetent veteran, Maurice Christian,
respondent took approximately $44,000 from Christian’s guardianship account.
Respondent has made no restitution to either the Hallows guardianship or the
Christian guardianship.
{¶ 4} The panel additionally found that respondent began to have a drinking
problem in the mid- to late 1970s and that he was dysfunctional for a period of
eighteen months before he was hospitalized in April 1995 for alcohol dependency.
Respondent has since signed and met the conditions of a contract with the Ohio
Lawyers Assistance Program.
{¶ 5} After the hearing, the panel learned that respondent had been
convicted of (aggravated) theft and tampering with records.
{¶ 6} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended indefinitely
from the practice of law and that any readmission be predicated on the repayment
of funds to the Hallows and Christian guardianships and the repayment of any
surety that was required to honor its bond as a result of respondent’s defalcations.
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the panel.
__________________
Roger Luring, for relator
De Wayne Smith, for respondent
__________________
2
January Term, 1997
Per Curiam.
{¶ 7} Public trust in the legal profession is tested daily in the service
provided by each individual lawyer to his or her clients. When a lawyer, who has
taken responsibility for a client’s papers or property, commingles client funds or
dissipates that property, that lawyer not only ill serves the client but also contributes
to the erosion of public trust in the profession. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Brooks
(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 524, 664 N.E.2d 900.
{¶ 8} This disciplinary proceeding involves a respondent whose clients
expected him to promptly remit settlement funds and to handle estate funds with
the utmost care. Respondent not only failed to remit client funds promptly when
requested but also filed false reports with the probate court and misappropriated
moneys in two guardianship estates.
{¶ 9} Respondent has received criminal penalties for his fraud and
defalcation. It is our duty not to punish further for these infractions but, as required
by our power of superintendence of the practice and profession of law in this state,
to determine whether and on what conditions respondent should remain on the roll
of those attorneys permitted to practice in Ohio.
{¶ 10} During the past year we have said at least three times that the
appropriate sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment. Columbus
Bar Assn. v. Sterner (1996), 77 Ohio St. 3d 164, 16, 672 N.E.2d 633; Mahoning
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Michaels (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 645, 647, 665 N.E.2d 676, 677;
Disciplinary Counsel v. Connaughton (1996), 75 Ohio St. 3d 644, 645, 665 N.E.2d
675, 676. This is not a new sanction. We have imposed this penalty for at least
twenty-two years. Cf. Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ostrander (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 93,
70 O.O.2d 173, 322 N.E.2d 653.
{¶ 11} In this case the board found mitigating circumstances and
recommended a penalty of indefinite suspension. In a recent similar case which
could otherwise have warranted disbarment, we gave weight to the attorney’s
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
sincere attempt to overcome his alcoholism and the board’s recommendation of
leniency. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Keeler (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 471, 475, 668
N.E.2d 471, 474. For a similar reason, we adopt the recommendation of the board
and the respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in
Ohio. Costs are taxed to the respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
COOK, J., dissents.
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, J., not participating.
__________________
COOK, J., dissenting.
{¶ 12} The thefts by this respondent involve a level of volition that, in my
view, is unmitigated by his addiction to alcohol. I would, therefore, disbar
respondent.
__________________
4