Case Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Bench

Citation: 1994-Ohio-84

Docket Number: 19940897

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1994-12-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
                                                                                 
              **** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING ****                               
                                                                                 
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
Dayton Bar Association v. Bench.                                                 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Bench (1994),      Ohio St.3d                       
.]                                                                               
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment --                        
     Conviction of forgery.                                                      
     (No. 94-897 --  Submitted November 1, 1994 -- Decided                       
December 20, 1994.)                                                              
     On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on                        
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 93-13.                       
     By a complaint filed on April 19, 1993, relator, the                        
Dayton Bar Association, charged that respondent, Douglas W.                      
Bench of Orlando, Florida, Attorney Registration No. 0019916,                    
had committed felony grand theft and, on a separate occasion,                    
felony forgery (uttering), and that he had thereby violated DR                   
1-102(A)(1) (violation of a disciplinary rule), 1-102(A)(2)                      
(circumventing a disciplinary rule through the actions of                        
another), 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving                     
moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving                     
dishonesty, 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 his fitness to practice law), 7-101(A)(1) (failing                   
to seek the lawful objectives of a client through reasonably                     
available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules),                    
7-101(A)(3) (intentionally prejudicing or damaging a client                      
during the course of the professional relationship),                             
7-102(A)(4)(knowingly using false evidence), 7-102(A)(5)                         
(knowingly make a false statement of fact), 7-102(A)(6)                          
(knowingly participate in the creation or preservation of                        
evidence which he knew to be false), 7-102(A)(8) (knowingly                      
engaging in illegal conduct or conduct contrary to a                             
disciplinary rule), 9-102(A)(failing to preserve the separate                    
identity of funds and property of a client), 9-102(B)(failing                    
to account for and promptly deliver funds which a client is                      
entitled to receive).  Respondent was served with the                            
complaint, and filed an answer admitting most of the facts of                    
the complaint, but denying the timing of his guilty pleas in                     
the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, Criminal Division.1                    
     The matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of                         
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court                  
("board") for a hearing on November 8, 1993.  At the hearing,                    
respondent and relator entered into verbal stipulations of fact                  
as to many of the allegations contained in the complaint.                        
Testimony was heard from two witnesses and respondent on the                     
remaining issues.                                                                
                            Mallory                                              
     In July 1985, respondent was retained by Lynda Mallory,                     
the mother of Clinton Mallory, a minor, who was injured in a                     
commercial hayride accident, to pursue and settle the personal                   
injury claim.  To further the action, Lynda Mallory was                          
appointed guardian of the estate of Clinton Mallory.  In April                   
1986, Lynda applied to the probate court for authority to                        
settle the claim for her son's personal injuries in the amount                   
of $11,200.  On May 15, 1986, the probate court approved the                     
settlement and authorized payment of $3,733.33 for respondent's                  
legal services and ordering that $7,466.67 be deposited into a                   
guardianship account for the benefit of the ward.                                
     Lynda relinquished the settlement funds to respondent, who                  
deposited them into his trust account.  In October 1986,                         
respondent filed a guardian's inventory with the probate court                   
showing that the settlement funds had been deposited into a                      
certain account with Society Bank.  In fact, the account was                     
respondent's trust account.  The guardian's signature on the                     
inventory was a forgery.                                                         
     In August 1987, respondent filed the first partial account                  
in the guardianship matter.  Respondent included a Standard                      
Bank Confirmation Inquiry form as part of the filing.  Lynda                     
Mallory's signature was forged on both of the documents.  The                    
account indicates that $7,708.68 was held in the account name                    
of "Guardianship of Clinton Mallory."  The account number                        
listed on the form is respondent's trust account.  Respondent                    
never created a guardianship account.                                            
     The forgeries were discovered by Lynda in October 1989,                     
when she contacted the probate court regarding a delinquent                      
accounting from respondent.  From these events respondent was                    
charged with and subsequently pled guilty to felony grand                        
theft, a violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(2).  Respondent was                        
sentenced to one-year imprisonment, but was placed on                            
probation.                                                                       
     In April 1990, respondent paid Lynda Mallory, as guardian                   
for her son, $9,000 to settle all claims against respondent.                     
Respondent's trust account had insufficient funds to cover the                   
amount owed during 1990.  The funds used to pay Lynda came from                  
respondent's personal account.                                                   
                              Hale                                               
     On June 26, 1987, fourteen-year-old Christina Ritchie was                   
killed along with three other teenagers and a truck driver in a                  
car accident.  Christina's mother, Tammy Ritchie Hale,                           
contacted respondent for representation in an action for the                     
death of her only child.                                                         
     In April 1988, Hale was appointed administratrix of Hale's                  
daughter's estate.  In March 1989, an application to approve a                   
wrongful death settlement in the amount of $52,000 was filed                     
with the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, Probate                           
Division.  The application contains Hale's signature.  Filed                     
the same date was a Distribution of Wrongful Death Proceeds                      
form also containing Hale's signature.  Hale's signatures on                     
both documents were forgeries.  The distribution form indicates                  
a settlement of $52,000, minus attorney fees of $17,333 and                      
funeral expenses of $1,212.07, with net proceeds to Hale of                      
$33,454.93.  The document also contains the signature of R.B.                    
Ritchie, Christina's father, which purports to approve of the                    
distribution.  That signature was also a forgery.  Ritchie's                     
signature was also forged on an affidavit that purported to                      
waive service of process and notice of any hearings.                             
Respondent notarized the affidavit indicating that he had                        
observed Ritchie sign the document.  In fact, Ritchie was never                  
contacted concerning the estate or the wrongful death matter.                    
     In April 1989 Hale had become aware of the settlement,                      
agreed to it, and signed a document entitled "Statement in Lieu                  
of 1st & Final Account," which was filed with the probate                        
court.  On April 19, 1989, respondent filed a Report of                          
Distribution of Wrongful Death Proceeds with the probate court,                  
indicating that Hale had received $33,455.  The document bears                   
two signatures by Hale, both forgeries.  At that time, Hale had                  
actually received $6,700 of the proceeds from respondent.                        
     Several weeks passed and Hale had not received any                          
additional funds.  Hale then went to respondent's office only                    
to discover that the office was empty.  A secretary in the                       
office did not disclose respondent's whereabouts, but Hale                       
received a call later that day from respondent.  He indicated                    
that he was in Florida and that she would receive her money                      
soon.  A few days later respondent called Hale again and                         
requested that Hale falsely advise the probate court's chief                     
legal deputy that Hale's mother had received full payment                        
because respondent was concerned about Hale's mental                             
condition.  In May 1989, respondent paid Hale an additional                      
$21,700 of the proceeds from the wrongful death suit.  As a                      
result of these events, respondent was charged with and pled                     
guilty to a felony charge of forgery (uttering), in violation                    
of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3).  Respondent was sentenced to one year                     
imprisonment, but was placed on probation.                                       
     Upon review of the factual stipulations and the testimony                   
at the hearing, the panel found a violation of DR 1-102(A)(1),                   
1-102(A)(2), 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5),                              
1-102(A)(6), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(3), 7-102(A)(4),                              
7-102(A)(5), 7-102(A)(6), 7-102(A)(8), 9-102(A), and 9-102(B).                   
     The panel also found that at the time of the events                         
discussed herein, respondent was having significant marital                      
problems, which had a profound impact on him.  Eventually                        
respondent decided to leave the practice of law.  Respondent                     
had moved to Florida, reconciled with his wife and was involved                  
in a number of nonlaw-related business activities.                               
     The panel then recommended that respondent be indefinitely                  
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio with no credit for                    
his suspension from April 1990.  The board adopted the panel's                   
findings and its recommendation, and also recommended that                       
costs be taxed to respondent.                                                    
                                                                                 
     David F. Rudwall, for relator.                                              
     Douglas W. Bench, Pro se.                                                   
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we                      
agree with the board's findings of misconduct, but disagree                      
with its recommendation.  Given the gravity of respondent's                      
actions, Douglas W. Bench is hereby permanently disbarred from                   
the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent.                         
                                     Judgment accordingly.                       
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.                   
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.                                                
                                                                                 
                                                                                 
FOOTNOTE                                                                         
1.   Respondent pled guilty to the conduct that forms the basis                  
of the relator's complaint on January 19, 1990, in State of                      
Ohio v. Douglas W. Bench (Jan. 19, 1990), Montgomery County                      
C.P. No. 89-CR-3664, unreported.  As a result of his guilty                      
pleas, respondent was indefinitely suspended from the practice                   
of law in Ohio on April 5, 1990, in case No. 90-512.