Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Wangul

Citation: 1998-Ohio-89

Docket Number: 19980755

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-09-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. WANGUL. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Wangul (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Misappropriation of 
client funds. 
(No. 98-755 — Submitted June 10, 1998 — Decided September 30, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-94. 
 
On December 9, 1996, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent, Victor Wangul of Parma Heights, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0036788, violated several Disciplinary Rules while representing 
the estates of Steve Pitorek and Helen Solanics.  When relator’s attempts to serve 
respondent at his last known address were unsuccessful, relator served the Clerk of 
the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent failed to answer 
or otherwise plead within the time permitted by rule, and  relator’s motion for a 
default judgment was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
Based on the exhibits and the affidavits attached to the motion, the panel 
found that in February 1992, while respondent represented the estate of Helen 
Solanics, whose executor had been Steve Pitorek, he was appointed executor 
without bond of  Pitorek’s estate.  During the administration of both estates, 
respondent transferred $16,000 from the Pitorek estate to the estate of Solanics, 
wrote checks to himself from the Pitorek estate, and commingled estate accounts 
with payable-on-death accounts in the Pitorek estate.  After respondent failed to 
file an accounting and was removed as executor of the Pitorek estate, the probate 
court, in April 1993, appointed Mary Haas McGraw as successor administrator. 
 
2
 
In October 1993, the probate court entered judgment surcharging 
respondent in the amount of $102,675, representing funds which respondent 
improperly withdrew from the Pitorek estate during the course of his 
administration, and $3,361.95 for attorney fees and expenses of the successor 
administrator.  Just prior to the surcharge order, respondent admitted to McGraw 
that he owed the money to the estate and claimed that he would repay it.  Since 
that time respondent has not contacted McGraw. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving moral turpitude), (4) (a lawyer shall 
not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 
6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him), and 7-
101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not intentionally prejudice or damage his client).  The 
panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
__________________ 
 
Donald Cybulski, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  The 
appropriate sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment. Toledo 
Bar Assn. v. Batt (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 189, 677 N.E.2d 349, and cases cited 
therein.  We find no mitigating circumstances here which would cause us to 
deviate from imposing that sanction.  Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
3
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
DOUGLAS and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent.