The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 86 Ohio St.3d 551.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROBERTS.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Roberts, 1999-Ohio-196.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Permanent disbarment—Converting funds for
personal use—Blatantly disregarding court orders in litigation prompted
by the wrongful appropriation of the funds.
(No. 99-837—Submitted June 9, 1999—Decided September 8, 1999.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-94.
__________________
{¶ 1} In October 1995, St. George Bank Limited (“St. George”), an
Australian limited banking partnership, received a request from a customer to
electronically transfer the equivalent of $8,225.07 in United States currency to the
Kentucky bank account of respondent, Thomas Wayne Roberts of Erlanger,
Kentucky, Attorney Registration No. 0039832. St. George mistakenly transferred
$822,507 instead of $8,225.07 to respondent’s account, which was his attorney trust
account. Shortly thereafter, respondent withdrew all of the incorrectly transferred
funds from his account and after taking $8,000 in cash for himself, purchased
cashier’s checks payable to various individuals and companies, including mortgage
and credit card companies. St. George discovered its mistake, and in November
1995, it demanded that respondent refund the erroneously transferred funds.
{¶ 2} After respondent refused to return the funds, St. George filed suit in
Kentucky. In February 1996, the Kentucky court entered judgment in favor of St.
George and against respondent in the amount of $814,281.93 plus interest. The
Kentucky court found that respondent had converted St. George’s funds by
wrongfully exercising dominion and control over the funds exceeding the correct
transfer. The Kentucky court also issued a permanent injunction precluding
respondent, his bank, and their agents from transferring any funds and noted that
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
St. George was entitled to immediate execution of the judgment. Respondent
ignored St. George’s discovery requests related to collecting on the judgment, as
well as a subpoena and a court order compelling production of the requested
documents. In May 1996, the Kentucky court found respondent in contempt and
ordered him to produce the requested documents. When respondent again failed to
comply, the Kentucky court issued a bench warrant for his arrest on contempt
charges. Respondent, however, fled that court’s jurisdiction.
{¶ 3} In February 1996, St. George filed an action in the Hamilton County
Court of Common Pleas requesting that the court make the Kentucky permanent
injunction an Ohio judgment. St. George later filed an amended complaint naming
additional defendants who had received funds wrongfully converted from St.
George by respondent. In August 1996, the Hamilton County court entered a
default judgment and a permanent injunction against respondent.
{¶ 4} On October 13, 1997, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint charging respondent with violating several Disciplinary Rules. After
respondent failed to answer, the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) on
relator’s motion and amended motion for default judgment and attached exhibits.
{¶ 5} The panel found the facts as previously set forth, and further found
that respondent had been found in contempt of court by the Hamilton County court
for refusal to respond to discovery requests, and that the Hamilton County court
had issued a bench warrant for respondent’s arrest for civil contempt. The panel
concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal
conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving
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 on lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and 9-102(A) (failing to maintain
client funds in identifiable bank accounts with no funds belonging to lawyer or law
2
January Term, 1999
firm disputed therein). The panel further found no evidence of mitigation and
recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in
Ohio. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
panel.
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} We adopt the findings of the board except those referring to
respondent’s Hamilton County contempt of court and bench warrant for his arrest.
While there is evidence of such misconduct in the Kentucky litigation, neither the
complaint nor the motions for default judgment and attached exhibits support these
findings for the Hamilton County case.
{¶ 7} Nevertheless, we adopt the conclusions and recommendation of the
board. “ ‘The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar
requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases.’ ” See
Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 462, 464, 700 N.E.2d 858,
859, quoting Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694
N.E.2d 897, 899. Respondent converted funds to which he was not entitled for his
personal use and blatantly disregarded court orders in litigation prompted by his
wrongful appropriation of these funds. No mitigation circumstances exist, and
disbarment is the appropriate sanction. Respondent is hereby permanently
disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
3