The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 89 Ohio St.3d 240.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. RYAN.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ryan, 2000-Ohio-145.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Permanent disbarment—Misuse of client funds—
Pattern of neglect of client interests—Failure to cooperate in disciplinary
investigations—Previous discipline for similar conduct.
(No. 99-2268—Submitted February 23, 2000—Decided June 21, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-101.
__________________
{¶ 1} On June 9, 1999, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed an
amended complaint charging respondent, Irving Andrew Ryan of Berea, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0033416, with violating several Disciplinary Rules and
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) for failing to cooperate in relator’s investigation. Respondent
did not answer, and 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 for default judgment.
{¶ 2} Based on the complaint, the amended complaint, the motion for
default judgment, and the attached affidavits, the panel found that in 1983,
respondent, who had been the administrator of the estate of Donald L. Swihart, was
appointed trustee of a trust whose sole beneficiary was Donald Swihart’s son,
Michael Swihart. Respondent’s final account as administrator, filed in 1989,
indicated that $82,934.04 was transferred from the estate to the trust, including
$12,941.90 in securities. For several years, Michael Swihart tried unsuccessfully
to contact respondent regarding the status of the trust, and finally, in 1997, Swihart
removed him as trustee. After discovering that the $12,941.90 in securities, in
addition to the other property, had not been transferred from the estate to the trust,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
the successor trustee obtained a probate court order compelling respondent to file
an accounting. During the proceedings on that accounting, respondent admitted
that he had commingled funds from the trust. The court found respondent in
contempt and sentenced him to three days of incarceration, suspended.
{¶ 3} The panel also found that in October 1998, respondent agreed to
represent Gretchen Herbkersman, in preparing a deed. When Herbkersman
telephoned respondent in February 1999, she received a recorded message that
respondent had retired in October 1998. Respondent did not complete any legal
work for Herbkersman.
{¶ 4} The panel concluded that respondent’s actions in serving as trustee
violated DR 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 that adversely reflects
on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 7-101(A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging a
client during the course of the professional relationship), and 9-102(B)(3) (failing
to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client
coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to the
client regarding them).
{¶ 5} The panel also concluded that in failing to act on behalf of Gretchen
Herbkersman, respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him). The panel finally concluded that
respondent, in failing to cooperate with the investigation of the respective
grievances, violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
{¶ 6} Noting that respondent had previously been disciplined by the
Supreme Court of Ohio in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Ryan (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 285,
652 N.E.2d 971, for neglect of client matters, the panel recommended that
respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in the state of Ohio.
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
2
January Term, 2000
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 7} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
board. Respondent engaged in a pattern of deceit, admitted to commingling client
funds, neglected legal matters entrusted to him, and failed to cooperate in the
investigations. Further, respondent has been previously disciplined by this court
for similar conduct. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Ryan. We have held in the past that
misuse of client funds and a pattern of neglect of client interests warrants
disbarment. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wolosin (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 401, 403, 704
N.E.2d 566, 568; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Armon (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 497, 500,
678 N.E.2d 1371, 1373. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the
practice of law in the state of Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
3