Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Ryan

Citation: 2000-Ohio-145

Docket Number: 19992268

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ryan, 89 Ohio St.3d 240, 2000-Ohio-145.] 
 
 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. RYAN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ryan (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 240.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Misuse of client 
funds — Pattern of neglect of client interests — Failure to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigations — Previous discipline for similar conduct. 
(No. 99-2268 — Submitted February 23, 2000 — Decided June 21, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-101. 
 
On June 9, 1999, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed an amended 
complaint charging respondent, Irving Andrew Ryan of Berea, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0033416, with violating several Disciplinary Rules and Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G) for failing to cooperate in relator’s investigation.  Respondent did not 
answer, and the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) on relator’s motion for 
default judgment. 
 
Based on the complaint, the amended complaint, the motion for default 
judgment, and the attached affidavits, the panel found that in 1983, respondent, 
who had been the administrator of the estate of Donald L. Swihart, was appointed 
trustee of a trust whose sole beneficiary was Donald Swihart’s son, Michael 
 
 
2
Swihart.  Respondent’s final account as administrator, filed in 1989, indicated that 
$82,934.04 was transferred from the estate to the trust, including $12,941.90 in 
securities.  For several years, Michael Swihart tried unsuccessfully to contact 
respondent regarding the status of the trust, and finally, in 1997, Swihart removed 
him as trustee.  After discovering that the $12,941.90 in securities, in addition to 
the other property, had not been transferred from the estate to the trust, the 
successor trustee obtained a probate court order compelling respondent to file an 
accounting.  During the proceedings on that accounting, respondent admitted that 
he had commingled funds from the trust.  The court found respondent in contempt 
and sentenced him to three days of incarceration, suspended. 
 
The panel also found that in October 1998, respondent agreed to represent 
Gretchen Herbkersman, in preparing a deed.  When Herbkersman telephoned 
respondent in February 1999, she received a recorded message that respondent had 
retired in October 1998.  Respondent did not complete any legal work for 
Herbkersman. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s actions in serving as trustee violated 
DR 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 that adversely reflects 
on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 7-101(A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging a 
 
 
3
client during the course of the professional relationship), and 9-102(B)(3) (failing 
to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a 
client coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to 
the client regarding them). 
 
The panel also concluded that in failing to act on behalf of Gretchen 
Herbkersman, respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer 
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him).  The panel finally concluded that 
respondent, in failing to cooperate with the investigation of the respective 
grievances, violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
 
Noting that respondent had previously been disciplined by the Supreme 
Court of Ohio in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Ryan (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 285, 652 
N.E.2d 971, for neglect of client matters, the panel recommended that respondent 
be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in the state of Ohio.  The board 
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent engaged in a pattern of deceit, admitted to commingling 
 
 
4
client funds, neglected legal matters entrusted to him, and failed to cooperate in the 
investigations.  Further, respondent has been previously disciplined by this court 
for similar conduct.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Ryan.  We have held in the past that 
misuse of client funds and a pattern of neglect of client interests warrants 
disbarment.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wolosin (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 401, 403, 704 
N.E.2d 566, 568; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Armon (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 497, 500, 
678 N.E.2d 1371, 1373.  Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in the state of Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.