Case Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Michaels

Citation: 1996-Ohio-442

Docket Number: 19960433

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-06-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION V. MICHAELS. 
1 
[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Michaels (1996), ____Ohio St.3d 
2 
_____.] 
3 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Neglect of an 
4 
entrusted legal matter -- Failure to promptly pay or deliver to client 
5 
funds which the client is entitled to receive -- Engaging in conduct 
6 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. 
7 
 
(No. 96-433-- Submitted April 15, 1996 -- Decided June 26, 1996.) 
8 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
9 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-56. 
10 
 
We have before us the recommendation of the Board of 
11 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio 
12 
(“board”), based upon the findings of its panel, that the respondent, Joseph 
13 
T. Michaels of  Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0019397, be 
14 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. 
15 
 
On August 15, 1994 , relator, Mahoning County Bar Association, 
16 
filed a complaint against the respondent alleging three separate acts of 
17 
misconduct which violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect a legal matter entrusted 
18 
 
2
to him), and one of which also violated 9-102 (B)(4) (promptly pay or 
1 
deliver to the client funds, securities, or other properties which the client is 
2 
entitled to receive) and 1-102(A)(4) (engage in conduct involving 
3 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
4 
 
 Count I of the complaint alleged that Gary Fiorini hired respondent 
5 
and paid him $593.63 to perform legal services in the sale of real estate, but 
6 
respondent never performed these services.  Count II of the complaint 
7 
alleged that respondent agreed to represent James Romeo in preparing and 
8 
recording documents relating to obtaining title to property, but respondent 
9 
failed to perform these services.  Count III alleged that after Samuel Letizia 
10 
engaged respondent to represent him in the sale of his business for $50,000, 
11 
respondent had the property transferred to the purchaser but failed to pay 
12 
the mortgagee and other claimants and transmit the balance of the proceeds 
13 
to Letizia. 
14 
 
 Relator twice attempted to serve respondent with the complaint by 
15 
mail, but these efforts were unsuccessful because respondent had moved 
16 
and left no forwarding address.  Relator then served the Clerk of the Ohio 
17 
Supreme Court and thereafter filed a motion for a default judgment against 
18 
 
3
the respondent. After respondent failed to reply to the motion, the panel 
1 
found that relator had made a reasonable and diligent effort to contact 
2 
respondent and had complied with all the requirements regarding default.  
3 
The panel further found that there was no explanation for respondent’s 
4 
conduct or any evidence of mitigating circumstances, and that the 
5 
Disciplinary Rules were violated as alleged.  The board adopted the panel’s 
6 
findings, conclusions of law, and recommendation. 
7 
_______________________ 
8 
 
William Marshall and Donald P. Leone, for relator. 
9 
________________________ 
10 
 
Per Curiam.  Our ethical standards explicitly require that having 
11 
undertaken representation, a lawyer should use proper care to safeguard the 
12 
interests of his client.  In all three instances which are the subject of the 
13 
relator’s complaint, clients placed their trust and  confidence in the 
14 
respondent, and respondent, by neglecting their interests, betrayed that trust.  
15 
To compound these violations, in one instance respondent transferred his 
16 
client’s property to a purchaser and either did not receive the purchase price, 
17 
or did receive it and failed to distribute the funds to the mortgagee and to 
18 
 
4
his client with the result that respondent’s client has lost his property and 
1 
remains liable on the mortgage debt.  The appropriate sanction for neglect 
2 
of duty and misappropriation of client funds is disbarment.  See 
3 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Connaughton (1996), ____Ohio St.3d _____, ____ 
4 
N.E.2d _____; Greater Cleveland Bar Assn. v. McGarry (1979), 60 Ohio 
5 
St.2d 168, 14 O.O.3d 406, 398 N.E.2d 560; Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
6 
Ostrander (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 93, 70 O.O.2d 173, 322 N.E.2d 653; Ohio 
7 
State Bar Assn. v. Weaver (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 97, 70 O.O.2d 175, 322 
8 
N.E.2d 665;  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Alexander (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 
9 
22, 51 O.O.2d 40, 257 N.E.2d 369. 
10 
 
We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, but find that a 
11 
sanction more severe than indefinite suspension is warranted in this case. 
12 
We therefore order respondent disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  
13 
Costs taxed to respondent 
14 
 
 
 
 
 
                                   Judgment accordingly. 
15 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
16 
 
RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY AND PFEIFER, JJ., dissent and would 
17 
indefinitely suspend respondent. 
18