Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 101 Ohio St.3d 27, 2003-Ohio-6623.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SMITH. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 101 Ohio St.3d 27, 2003-Ohio-6623.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Apparent conversion 
and neglect in administering the estate of an adjudicated incompetent — 
Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 2003-1117 — Submitted August 26, 2003 — Decided December 31, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court, No. 02-93. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, 
Stanford 
Smith 
of 
Cleveland, 
Ohio, 
Attorney 
Registration No. 0030754, was admitted to the practice of law in 1958.  On 
December 9, 2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent in a two-count 
complaint with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent 
was served with the complaint but did not answer, and relator moved for default 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner appointed by the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and made findings of 
fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation. 
{¶2} 
As to the first count, the master commissioner found that respondent 
was appointed in March 1987 as guardian of an adjudicated incompetent and his 
estate.  In November 2000, after the death of the ward, the Cuyahoga County Court of 
Common Pleas, Probate Division, removed respondent from his fiduciary 
responsibility for the estate because he had failed to file a required account.  The 
probate court appointed a successor fiduciary. 
{¶3} 
The successor fiduciary filed a motion for surcharge upon discovering 
that documents filed in the estate did not completely account for $25,231 of the 
assets.  The successor determined from bank records that approximately $15,130 of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
this amount appeared to have been spent appropriately for the ward’s benefit.  A 
balance of $10,100.68, however, was not explained. 
{¶4} 
The probate court heard the surcharge motion in December 2001, but 
respondent, who had notice of the proceeding, did not appear.  In January 2002, the 
court found respondent liable to the successor fiduciary in the amount of $10,000 in 
unaccounted-for estate assets and for $2,531.35 in fees and expenses for the 
successor’s services.  The court specifically found that the successor’s services had 
been necessary because of  respondent’s willful and wanton neglect and his violation 
of state law.  The court ordered respondent to remit this payment within 14 days of 
the judgment; however, respondent did not comply. 
{¶5} 
The master commissioner found that by his apparent conversion and 
neglect in administering the estate, respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct 
involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (conduct 
adversely reflecting on an attorney’s fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of 
an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out a contract of  professional 
employment), and 9-102(B)(3) (failure to appropriately account for a client’s funds or 
other property). 
{¶6} 
As to the second count, the master commissioner found respondent in 
violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate in an investigation of 
misconduct) because respondent received but refused to respond to relator’s repeated 
requests for information about the administration of his former client’s estate.  He 
also ignored subpoenas for his appearance at two depositions. 
{¶7} 
In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the master 
commissioner reviewed the mitigating and aggravating considerations listed in 
Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  As to 
mitigation, the master commissioner observed that respondent had no history of 
professional misconduct. However, as aggravating features, the master commissioner 
noted respondent’s lack of cooperation, the particular vulnerability of his former 
January Term, 2003 
3 
client, and his failure to make any restitution.  The master commissioner also noted 
that respondent had not registered as an attorney for the current biennium in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. VI. 
{¶8} 
The master commissioner rejected the sanction suggested by relator—
permanent disbarment—because of respondent’s long and formerly unblemished 
legal career.  The master commissioner instead recommended that respondent be 
suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶9} 
We concur in the findings of misconduct and recommendation of the 
board. Absent any mitigating factors, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for an 
attorney’s misappropriation of client funds. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 
Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897.  Here, however, we accord weight to the board’s 
recommendation of the lesser sanction of indefinite suspension based on the 
mitigating evidence that respondent has been licensed to practice for approximately 
45 years without any previous ethical infraction.  See Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Hamilton (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 330, 725 N.E.2d 1116 (sufficient mitigating factors 
warranted the indefinite suspension, rather than disbarment, of an attorney who 
admitted having converted estate funds). 
{¶10} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended indefinitely from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kevin L. Williams, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________