Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw

Citation: 1998-Ohio-25

Docket Number: 19980384

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-10-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROMANIW. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
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. 
 
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. 
 
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 default and ordered that she file an account on or before October 10, 1996.  
 
2
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. 
 
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”). 
 
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). 
 
3
 
In mitigation the panel received evidence that respondent was suffering 
from multiple sclerosis and that she used most of the money taken from the two 
guardianships to support her children in college and in private secondary schools. 
 
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.  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.