The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 83 Ohio St.3d 462.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROMANIW.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw, 1998-Ohio-25.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Disbarment—Deliberate misappropriation of
funds from two guardianships for personal benefit.
(No. 98-384—Submitted June 24, 1998—Decided October 28, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-79.
__________________
{¶ 1} In April 1995, the Cuyahoga County Probate Court appointed
respondent, Chrystine Romaniw of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No.
0003596, as guardian of the estate of Natalia Bojko, an eighty-one-year-old person
adjudged to be incompetent by reason of mental disability. Bojko died testate in
February 1996. In December 1996, the court removed respondent as guardian of
the Bojko estate for failure to turn over estate assets and file a final account. Based
upon a report by the successor guardian, and after notice and an opportunity for a
hearing that respondent did not attend, the court found a shortage of $77,436.62 in
the Bojko guardianship account. The court also set aside an entry awarding fees to
respondent in the amount of $4,843.75 because the respondent had not performed
all the services set forth in her application. Finding that respondent improperly and
repeatedly used funds of the ward, Bojko, for respondent’s own benefit, the court
ordered respondent to pay the successor guardian $77,436.62, plus fees, expenses
of his investigation, and court costs.
{¶ 2} In December 1993, the Probate Court of Cuyahoga County appointed
respondent guardian of the person and property of Petro Lawrynec, an eighty-three-
year-old adjudged incompetent by reason of mental disability. Respondent failed
to file a timely account for the guardianship, and the probate court found her in
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
default and ordered that she file an account on or before October 10, 1996. When
respondent failed to file any account, she was removed as guardian of Lawrynec in
December 1996. As a result of a report by the successor guardian and after notice
and an opportunity for a hearing, the court found that respondent owed the
guardianship $34,398.16. In addition, the court ordered respondent to pay the
successor guardian the fees, court costs, and expenses of his investigation.
{¶ 3} On August 11, 1997, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint alleging that respondent’s conduct with respect to the two guardianships
violated several Disciplinary Rules. After respondent filed her answer, the matter
was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court (“board”).
{¶ 4} The panel concluded that respondent’s activities in the guardianships
violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude),
1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting
upon the ability to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter),
7-101(A)(1) (intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of a client), 7-
101(A)(2) (intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment entered into
with a client) (Bojko estate only), 7-101(A)(3) (intentionally damaging a client
during the course of a professional relationship), 9-102(B)(3) (failing to maintain
complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming
into the lawyer’s possession and to render appropriate accounts to the client
regarding them), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing promptly to pay or deliver to the client,
as requested, the property in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled
to receive).
{¶ 5} In mitigation the panel received evidence that respondent was
suffering from multiple sclerosis and that she used most of the money taken from
2
January Term, 1998
the two guardianships to support her children in college and in private secondary
schools.
{¶ 6} The panel recommended that respondent be disbarred from the
practice of law. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation
of the panel.
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Michael Tuan Bustamante and Sonali Bustamante Wilson, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 7} As we said in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d
98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899, “The continuing public confidence in the judicial
system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in
misappropriation cases.” We find no mitigating circumstances here that would
justify an exception to that principle. 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