Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Bertram

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BERTRAM. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bertram (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Misappropriation of 
funds from escrow accounts for personal benefit — Conviction for wire 
fraud and aiding and abetting wire fraud. 
(No. 98-2638 — Submitted January 27, 1999 — Decided March 17, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-76. 
 
In June 1998, respondent, William H. Bertram, Jr. of Greenville, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0016672, was convicted of two federal felonies.  As a 
result of his convictions, we suspended respondent for an interim period in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4).  In re Bertram (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 
1465, 696 N.E.2d 223.  On June 12, 1998, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 
filed an amended complaint charging respondent with violating several 
Disciplinary Rules.  Respondent filed an answer admitting most of the allegations 
of the amended complaint.  The parties subsequently submitted the matter to a 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”) based on their stipulated facts, exhibits, conclusions, and 
a joint recommendation. 
 
Based on the stipulations, the panel found that in 1995 and 1996, 
respondent was the sole shareholder, director, officer, and legal counsel for 
Secured Equity Title and Appraisal Agency Corporation, a title insurance agency 
that had its principal place of business in Greenville, Ohio. The title agency 
maintained an escrow account consisting of funds given to the agency in trust to 
facilitate real estate transactions for the agency’s customers, who were buying real 
property.  Through his ownership and control of the title agency, respondent 
 
2
devised and executed a scheme in which he diverted over four million dollars by 
wire transfers from the agency’s escrow account to his own personal investments 
and accounts.  After a federal information was filed charging him with wire fraud 
in violation of Section 1343, Title 18, U.S.Code, and aiding and abetting wire 
fraud in violation of Section 2, Title 18, U.S.Code, respondent entered a guilty 
plea to the charges.  The federal district court convicted respondent of the charged 
offenses, sentenced him to prison for thirty-three months to be followed by three 
years of supervised release with conditions, fined him $50,000, and ordered him to 
make restitution in an actual amount yet to be determined, but approximately 
$2,300,000. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) 
(engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in 
conduct involving fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging 
in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law).  The parties presented 
no mitigating evidence, and they stipulated that disbarment was the appropriate 
sanction.  The panel recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred from 
the practice of law in 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. 
 
William H. Bertram, Jr., pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  “The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar 
requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases.”  
 
3
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 
899.  Therefore, as respondent concedes, disbarment is the appropriate sanction 
for respondent’s misappropriation of millions of dollars of his business’s escrow 
accounts for his personal benefit.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. DiCarlantonio 
(1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 479, 628 N.E.2d 1355, in which we permanently disbarred 
an attorney for comparable conduct violating DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), and 1-
102(A)(6), and resulting in federal felony convictions.  Respondent is hereby 
permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.