Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Katalinas

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Katalinas, 90 Ohio St.3d 140, 2000-Ohio-37.] 
 
 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. KATALINAS. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Katalinas (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 140.] 
Judges — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Managing financial affairs 
for individual not a family member and refusing individual’s demands for 
return of his funds — Engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude — 
Engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice 
law — Entering into business transaction with client having differing 
interests — Prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional 
relationship — Failing to deposit all client funds in an identifiable bank 
account in which no funds of lawyer are deposited — Failing to maintain 
complete records of all property of client in lawyer’s possession and 
render proper accounts when requested — Failing to deliver upon request 
funds and property of client which client is entitled to receive. 
(No. 00-781 — Submitted July 6, 2000 — Decided September 20, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-48. 
 
 
2
 
On August 9, 1999, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging respondent, Edward F. Katalinas of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0033651, with several violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Relator filed a motion for default 
when respondent failed to answer, and the matter was referred to Master 
Commissioner Harry White. 
 
Based on the exhibits and affidavits attached to the motion for default, the 
master commissioner found that in June 1994, while he was a sitting municipal 
court judge, respondent agreed to manage the financial affairs of Donald A. Green, 
a childhood friend.  Green granted him a durable power of attorney and delivered 
his United States Savings Bonds to Katalinas.  Respondent redeemed the bonds 
and treated the funds as a personal loan.  Respondent also took control of Green’s 
bank accounts for his own personal use and ignored Green’s demands for the 
return of his funds. 
 
In addition, the master commissioner found that in January 1998, Kenneth 
Reese paid respondent a $200 retainer to vacate a legal separation and convert it 
into a divorce action.  Respondent did not file the papers and refused to return the 
retainer to Reese. 
 
The master commissioner also found that Michael and Melissa Palivoda 
retained respondent to represent them in a civil action involving a motor vehicle 
 
 
3
accident.  Respondent filed a complaint, but the case was dismissed when 
respondent failed to comply with discovery.  When the Palivodas requested the 
return of their case file, respondent demanded a payment of $5,000 and refused to 
give up the file until contacted by an investigator for relator. 
 
The master commissioner concluded that by his conduct respondent had 
violated Canon 4(D)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct (a judge shall not serve as 
a fiduciary except for a family member) and Canon 4(F) (a judge shall not practice 
law except to give legal advice to or draft documents for a family member).  He 
also found that the same conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-
102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice), 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on 
fitness to practice law), 5-104(A) (a lawyer shall not enter into a business 
transaction with a client if they have differing interests, unless the client consents 
after full disclosure), 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not prejudice or damage a client 
during the course of the professional relationship), 9-102(A) (a lawyer shall 
deposit all client funds in an identifiable bank account in which no funds of the 
lawyer are deposited), 9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all 
property of the client in the lawyer’s possession and render proper accounts when 
 
 
4
requested), and 9-102(B)(4) (at the request of a client, a lawyer shall deliver funds 
and property to the client which the client is entitled to receive). 
 
The master commissioner found no mitigating circumstances and 
recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in 
Ohio. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme 
Court adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the master 
commissioner. 
 
Keith A. Ashmus and Kevin M. Magnuson, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in 
Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.