Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Austin

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. AUSTIN. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Austin (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Commingling and 
mismanaging guardianship accounts. 
 
(No. 97-1748 — Submitted October 7, 1997 — Decided December 31, 
1997.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-117. 
 
In 1984, respondent, Richard Austin of Christiansted, St. Croix, Virgin 
Islands, Attorney Registration No. 0031709, received funds as guardian of three 
minor children.  He placed the funds in his trust account and not in a guardianship 
account.  Thereafter, he failed to keep proper account of deposits and payments to 
the guardianship account, commingled client funds with the guardianship funds, 
and failed to provide proper accountings to the probate court.  As a result of 
respondent’s actions, the beneficiaries of the guardianship funds failed to earn 
proper interest. 
 
In late 1992 or early 1993, respondent was removed as guardian, and a 
successor guardian was appointed.  By 1995, respondent had made full and 
complete restitution to the guardianship . 
 
In December 1996, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with violations of several Disciplinary Rules, and the matter 
was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“board”) on stipulations of the parties. 
 
The panel found that respondent commingled and mismanaged guardianship 
accounts and concluded that his actions violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting upon the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 9-
 
2
102(B)(3) (failing to maintain complete records of a client’s funds), and 9-
102(B)(4) (failing to promptly deliver funds in the possession of a lawyer which 
the client is entitled to receive). 
 
The panel further found in mitigation that at no time during respondent’s 
tenure as guardian were the beneficiaries denied access to their accounts or use of 
the funds, that respondent provided for the needs of the beneficiaries with no 
interruption, problems, or difficulties, and that respondent made full and complete 
restitution before this disciplinary action was commenced.  The panel also found 
that the accounting problems occurred during a time of emotional stress for 
respondent due to the termination of his marriage, his remarriage, his relocation to 
the Virgin Islands to provide legal services to the poor, his subsequent divorce 
from his second wife, the devastation of his community and his property by 
Hurricane Hugo in 1989, and his complete collapse followed by hospitalization at 
the Cleveland Clinic in late 1989.  In addition, the panel found that for thirteen 
years respondent has worked at an agency providing legal services to the poor in 
the Virgin Islands, and that he was so highly regarded in his position of trust and 
management that he had been considered for a position as director of the agency. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
__________________ 
 
John M. Ruffolo, for relator. 
 
Gary J. Leppla, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  Based 
upon the mitigating circumstances, we find, as recommended by the board, that 
 
3
respondent ought to be and he hereby is publicly reprimanded.  Costs taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.