The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 88 Ohio St.3d 330.]
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. HAMILTON.
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Hamilton, 2000-Ohio-349.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Misappropriation of
client funds.
(No. 99-2269—Submitted February 9, 2000—Decided March 29, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-34.
__________________
{¶ 1} From 1990 until November 1998, respondent, Charles E. Hamilton of
Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0016941, maintained a part-time
private law practice while being employed by the Ohio Department of Taxation
during the same period. In 1995, respondent filed an application in the Franklin
County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, for an order designating Flora
M. Moore as the guardian of the person and estate of her sister, Effie Stevison.
{¶ 2} In May 1997, after Stevison died, respondent filed an application on
behalf of Moore to relieve the estate from administration. The probate court
appointed respondent as the commissioner of the estate, and he filed findings
valuing estate assets at $14,194.40 and valid claims against the estate of
$10,379.47. The probate court approved respondent’s findings and ordered
respondent to file his report of distribution of estate assets by December 31, 1997.
{¶ 3} When respondent failed to file the distribution report by the specified
date, he was ordered to appear before the court for a September 1998 hearing. From
September 1997 through July 1998, respondent had withdrawn a total of $2,969
from the estate for his personal use. At the hearing, respondent admitted that he
had converted these estate assets for his personal use and that he was unable to
repay the estate and file a report of distribution of assets.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 4} In October 1998, the probate court found respondent guilty of
contempt, removed him as commissioner of the estate, and ordered that he be
incarcerated for seven days. The court also ordered respondent to make full
restitution to the estate and to file a distribution report. By December 1998,
respondent had served his sentence and fully complied with the probate court
orders.
{¶ 5} On June 7, 1999, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a complaint
charging respondent with violating numerous Disciplinary Rules. After respondent
failed to file an answer, the matter was referred to a master commissioner under
Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(2) on relator’s motion for default judgment.
{¶ 6} The master commissioner found the facts as previously set forth and
concluded that by his conduct, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in
illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct
involving 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 attorney’s fitness to practice law), and 7-101(A)(3)
(prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of the professional
relationship).
{¶ 7} The master commissioner recommended that respondent be
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. The Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”)
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the master
commissioner.
__________________
Melodee S. Kornacker, Pamela N. Maggied and Patricia K. Block, for
relator.
__________________
Per Curiam.
2
January Term, 2000
{¶ 8} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
board. Absent any mitigating factors, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for an
attorney’s misappropriation of client funds. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998),
82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899. Here, however, we accord weight to
the board’s recommendation of the lesser sanction of indefinite suspension based
on the evidence of mitigation, i.e., no continued pattern of misconduct, restitution,
and full cooperation with the disciplinary investigation. See, e.g., Disciplinary
Counsel v. Lowrey (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 2, 4, 706 N.E.2d 758, 759; Cleveland Bar
Assn. v. Stebbins (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 7, 9, 706 N.E.2d 762, 763; see, also,
Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 316, 321, 720 N.E.2d 525,
530, fn. 1, and cases cited therein. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended
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