Case Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Weirich

Citation: 2000-Ohio-121

Docket Number: 19991897

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Weirich, 89 Ohio St.3d 115, 2000-Ohio-121.] 
 
 
 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. WEIRICH. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Weirich (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 115.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in conduct 
that adversely reflects on ability to practice law — Accepting employment 
when the exercise of professional judgment may be affected by financial, 
business, or personal interests — Practicing law in violation of the 
regulations of the profession — Failing to cooperate in the investigation of 
a disciplinary matter — Failing to register with the Supreme Court. 
(No. 99-1897 — Submitted February 9, 2000 — Decided May 31, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-10. 
 
In February 1995, respondent, William C. Weirich of Euclid, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0038122, began managing the affairs of Alfons Albert Skeivis 
pursuant to a power of attorney.  Skeivis was confined to a nursing home and could 
not take care of his own finances.  Also, as Skeivis’s attorney, respondent billed 
Skeivis for his legal services and paid himself from Skeivis’s accounts.  During 
1995 and 1996, respondent also owned a business known as Northpoint 
Renovation and Remodeling (“Northpoint”). 
 
 
2
 
In 1995 and 1996, respondent failed to pay the bills submitted by the nursing 
home where Skeivis resided.  During those years, respondent also began to neglect 
paying the utilities and other expenses incurred with respect to the home owned by 
Skeivis.  However, in 1996, respondent arranged for repairs to Skeivis’s home to 
be made by Northpoint and paid for those repairs from Skeivis’s account. 
 
On February 17, 1998, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging that respondent’s conduct violated several rules of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  The complaint also charged that respondent violated 
the Rules for the Government of the Bar by failing to cooperate with relator’s 
investigation of the grievance filed against him and by failing to register with the 
Supreme Court for the 1995-1997 biennium.  Respondent did not respond  timely 
to the complaint, and finally filed an answer only after relator had moved for 
default judgment.  After the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”), 
respondent failed to appear for a scheduled deposition, failed to provide complete 
discovery as requested by relator, and failed to appear at the hearing before the 
panel, at which relator presented evidence to support the complaint. 
 
The panel found that respondent had received notice of the hearing and had 
an opportunity to appear and present his case.  It further found the facts as stated 
above and concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(1) (violation 
 
 
3
of a Disciplinary Rule), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects 
on the attorney’s ability to practice law), 5-101(A)(1) (accepting employment 
when the exercise of professional judgment may be affected by financial, business, 
or personal interests), 3-101(B) (practicing law in violation of the regulations of 
the profession), Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in the investigation of a 
disciplinary matter), and VI(1) (failing to register with the Supreme Court).  The 
panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio. 
 
The board adopted the findings of fact and the conclusions of the panel that 
respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 5-101(A)(1), and 3-101(B), and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and VI(1).  The board also adopted the panel’s 
recommendation that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law. 
__________________ 
 
Howard A. Schulman and Robert J. Vecchio, for relator. 
 
William C. Weirich, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
 
 
4
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.