Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Dietz

Citation: 2006-Ohio-1067

Docket Number: 20051549

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Dietz, 108 Ohio St.3d 343, 2006-Ohio-1067.] 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. DIETZ. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Dietz, 108 Ohio St.3d 343, 2006-Ohio-1067.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Conduct involving moral turpitude—Conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice—Conduct involving dishonesty, 
deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation—Conduct adversely reflecting on 
fitness to practice law—Commingling—Failure to maintain records and 
accounts—Failure to cooperate in disciplinary proceedings—Indefinite 
suspension. 
(No. 2005-1549 — Submitted November 29, 2005 — Decided March 22, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-039. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David Robert Dietz of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0020558, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1982.  On 
October 4, 2005, we imposed an interim suspension of his license to practice law 
under Gov.Bar R. V(5) after we received notice that respondent had been 
convicted of a felony offense.  See In re Dietz, 106 Ohio St.3d 1527, 2005-Ohio-
5296, 835 N.E.2d 377. 
{¶ 2} On October 5, 2004, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct.  Respondent filed 
an answer to the complaint, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline held a hearing on the complaint in April 2005.  The 
panel then prepared written findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the 
board adopted, as well as a recommendation, which the board modified. 
Misconduct 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Count I 
{¶ 3} Charles J. Boyd died in June 2001, and respondent was appointed 
executor of his estate in the Summit County Probate Court.  In May 2002, 
respondent transferred $6,500 from the estate’s bank account to his personal bank 
account.  Two months later, respondent took an additional $4,500 from the 
account and deposited the funds into his own personal account.  In December 
2002, respondent removed another $2,500 from the estate’s account and deposited 
the money into his own personal account. 
{¶ 4} In March 2004, respondent filed an accounting with the probate 
court in which he claimed that there had been no disbursements from the Boyd 
estate, when in fact he had disbursed $13,500 from that estate to his own personal 
account in 2002. 
{¶ 5} The board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) 
(barring illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (barring conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (barring 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (barring 
conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Count II 
{¶ 6} The accounting that respondent filed with the probate court for the 
Boyd estate in March 2004 showed that the estate’s bank account contained 
$14,215.88 on March 8, 2004.  Although the bank account did contain funds in 
that amount on that date, the balance in the account had fallen to $593.10 the 
month before, and the accounting filed by respondent failed to reveal that fact.  To 
bring the balance in the account up to the amount reflected in the accounting, 
respondent deposited $13,622.78 into the account on March 8, 2004.  The money 
that he deposited came from another estate’s account, and his transfer of funds 
from that other estate’s bank account to the Boyd estate’s bank account was 
improper. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 7} The board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-
102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6). 
Count III 
{¶ 8} Respondent was tardy in filing accountings for the Boyd estate 
with the probate court.  At a court hearing on respondent’s tardiness, respondent 
told the court that he had been unable to file the accounting because someone who 
worked in his office had lost or misplaced the relevant bank statements.  Relator 
alleged in its complaint that this statement was untrue, but respondent denied that 
allegation in his answer. 
{¶ 9} Although the board treated the allegations in the complaint as true 
and found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-
102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6), we find in the record no clear and convincing 
evidence proving that respondent committed the misconduct alleged in Count III 
of the complaint.  We therefore dismiss that count. 
Count IV 
{¶ 10} Susanne Doris Judson died in October 2003, and respondent was 
appointed executor of her estate in the Portage County Probate Court.  The 
$13,622.78 that respondent deposited into the Boyd estate’s bank account on 
March 8, 2004 – as described under Count II above – came from the Judson 
estate’s bank account.  The Portage County Probate Court had not authorized 
respondent to remove the funds from the Judson estate’s account, and 
respondent’s transfer of the funds resulted in the improper commingling of the 
assets of the two estates. 
{¶ 11} The board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-
102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 9-102(A) (requiring lawyers to maintain 
client funds in a separate, identifiable bank account), and 9-102(B)(3) (requiring 
lawyers to maintain complete records and appropriate accounts). 
Counts V and VI 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 12} During relator’s investigation of respondent’s misconduct, 
respondent provided relator several untrue and deceptive statements about his 
actions.  In particular, respondent told relator in February and March 2004 that he 
had not taken any funds from the Boyd estate’s bank account, when in fact he had 
removed $13,500 from that account for his own use in 2002 as described under 
Count I above.  He also failed to tell relator that he had improperly transferred 
funds from the Judson estate’s bank account to the Boyd estate’s account. 
{¶ 13} The board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-
102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring attorneys to 
cooperate with and assist in any disciplinary investigation). 
Count VII 
{¶ 14} Frank Cypryla paid respondent $600 to represent him in a 
domestic-relations matter.  Respondent performed no work on Cypryla’s case, but 
deposited the funds into his business account rather than a client trust account.  
Also, a portion of the funds from Cypryla was intended to pay a court filing fee 
and should not have been deposited into respondent’s business account even if he 
had provided services to Cypryla. 
{¶ 15} The board found that respondent had violated DR 9-102(A). 
Sanction 
{¶ 16} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  As 
aggravating factors, the board found that respondent acted with a dishonest or 
selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, 
failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, and gave false statements during 
relator’s investigation.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). 
January Term, 2006 
5 
{¶ 17} Among the mitigating factors cited by the board were respondent’s 
lack of any prior disciplinary record and his payment of full restitution to the two 
estates from which he had taken money improperly.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a) and (c). 
{¶ 18} Relator and respondent jointly recommended that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law for two years, but the panel recommended to 
the board that respondent’s license to practice law be indefinitely suspended.  The 
board in turn recommended to this court that the respondent be permanently 
disbarred.  The case is now before us on respondent’s objections to the board’s 
recommendation. 
{¶ 19} We have reviewed the board’s report and have also considered the 
written and oral arguments presented by the parties in response to that report.  We 
find that respondent violated all of the provisions cited in the board’s report (with 
the exception of Count III as explained above), but we disagree with the board’s 
recommended sanction.  The appropriate sanction in this case is an indefinite 
suspension. 
{¶ 20} Respondent’s withdrawals from the Boyd estate’s account in 2002 
were clearly improper, as he himself acknowledged at the hearing before the 
panel.  He testified at that hearing that he took the $13,500 from the account 
because he “needed money.”  Respondent’s behavior was selfish and dishonest, 
and his fund-shifting scheme involving the Boyd and Judson estate assets was 
antithetical to the duties of loyalty, integrity, and candor that he owed to the 
courts and his clients. 
{¶ 21} Troubling as well is the lack of candor respondent displayed.  He 
not only filed a fraudulent accounting with the probate court in Summit County, 
but he also lied to relator during the disciplinary process, stating repeatedly and 
on multiple occasions in early 2004 that he had not taken any funds from the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
Boyd estate or any other.  Only after he was presented with copies of bank records 
did he acknowledge his misconduct. 
{¶ 22} In many cases, we have disbarred attorneys who – like respondent 
– misappropriated client funds.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Lantz, 102 
Ohio St.3d 93, 2004-Ohio-1806, 807 N.E.2d 298, ¶ 16 (attorney engaged in a 
continuous course of neglect and misappropriation without restitution and then 
failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process); Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock 
(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 694 N.E.2d 897 (attorney misappropriated funds from 
three clients and was convicted on federal criminal charges); Cuyahoga Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Churilla (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 348, 350, 678 N.E.2d 515 (attorney 
engaged in a “continued pattern of stealing from clients”). 
{¶ 23} Respondent’s very serious misconduct in this case is tempered, 
however, by the mitigating factors cited in the board’s report.  He did repay the 
money that he took from the two estates’ accounts, and he charged no executor 
fees or attorney fees to either estate for the legitimate work that he had performed 
for them.  Respondent had also practiced law for over 20 years with no 
disciplinary violations, and another Summit County lawyer testified at his 
disciplinary hearing about respondent’s good character. 
{¶ 24} In similar cases, we have imposed an indefinite suspension.  See, 
e.g., Akron Bar Assn. v. Holder, 105 Ohio St.3d 443, 2005-Ohio-2695, 828 
N.E.2d 621, ¶ 51 (mitigating factors included attorney’s long and largely 
unblemished professional career and two letters supporting his good character); 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Nagorny, 105 Ohio St.3d 97, 2004-Ohio-6899, 822 
N.E.2d 1233, ¶ 15 (noting several mitigating factors, including the attorney’s 
payment of restitution); Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 101 Ohio St.3d 27, 2003-
Ohio-6623, 800 N.E.2d 1129, ¶ 9 (describing attorney’s unblemished 45-year 
career as a mitigating factor); Columbus Bar Assn. v. Hamilton (2000), 88 Ohio 
January Term, 2006 
7 
St.3d 330, 332, 725 N.E.2d 1116 (mitigating factors included the payment of 
restitution and the absence of any continuing pattern of misconduct). 
{¶ 25} Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
David M. Lowry and James M. Campbell, for relator. 
 
Donald S. Varian Jr., for respondent. 
______________________