Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Curry

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Curry, 85 Ohio St.3d 380, 1999-Ohio-275.] 
 
 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. CURRY. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Curry (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 380.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect in 
administering an estate — Violation of a previously stayed suspension. 
(No. 98-2642 — Submitted January 27, 1999 — Decided April 21, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-95. 
 
In July 1997, we found that respondent, Diane Curry, a.k.a. Diane Marie 
Curry, of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0023737, violated Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation), and suspended 
her from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, with the suspension stayed on 
the condition that respondent not be found, in the future, to have violated any 
Disciplinary Rules.  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Curry (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 181, 
680 N.E.2d 966.  We also ordered respondent to pay board costs and any accrued 
interest by October 14, 1997.  On December 4, 1997, we ordered respondent to 
show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failure to pay board costs.  
Respondent did not file a response to the show cause order.  In November 1998, 
we found respondent in contempt of our July 1997 order and suspended her from 
the practice of law until, among other things, she paid the board’s costs and 
accrued interest.  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Curry (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1417, 
702 N.E.2d 427. 
 
On December 8, 1997, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with misconduct relating to the administration of an 
estate.  Relator alleged that respondent’s conduct violated several Disciplinary 
Rules, a Rule for the Government of the Bar, and the court’s July 1997 suspension 
order.  Respondent filed an answer denying most of the allegations.  Respondent 
 
2
subsequently waived her right to a hearing, and the matter was submitted to a panel 
of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme 
Court (“board”) on the evidence provided by the parties. 
 
The panel stated in its report as follows.  In October 1994, Milton Franklin, 
executor of the estate of Mattie B. Albritton, retained respondent to complete the 
administration of the estate.  Franklin paid respondent a $1,500 fee.  As respondent 
conceded, she did not properly administer the estate because she failed to file 
accounts, failed to amend the inventory to include a newly discovered asset, failed 
to inform estate beneficiaries that the mortgage on the decedent’s home had not 
been paid, resulting in the commencement of foreclosure proceedings, failed to 
conduct appropriate negotiations with the mortgagee, and failed to file an 
application for certificate of transfer.  Due to respondent’s failure to properly 
administer the estate, Franklin eventually obtained the assistance of probate court 
personnel and completed the administration of the estate himself in October 1996.  
Respondent did not return any portion of the $1,500 fee. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(1) 
(violating a Disciplinary Rule), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely 
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an 
entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek the lawful objectives of a 
client), (2) (failing to carry out an employment contract entered into with a client 
for professional services), and (3) (causing prejudice or damage to a client during 
the course of a professional relationship).  The panel further concluded that 
respondent violated the terms of our July 1997 suspension order. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law and that her application for readmission be conditioned on her (1) 
making full restitution or restitution satisfactory to the complainants, (2) 
establishing that she has received professional counseling for her depression and 
 
3
emotional problems and that she is emotionally fit to practice law, and (3) 
completing at least ten hours of approved continuing legal education on the subject 
of law office and practice management.  The board adopted the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.1 
__________________ 
 
Steuer, Escovar & Beck Co., L.P.A., and Thomas J. Escovar; Reid, Barry & 
Stanard and Margaret Stanard, for relator. 
 
Diane Curry, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  
Respondent’s neglect in administering the estate, which caused damage to her 
clients, coupled with the violation of her previously stayed suspension, warrants an 
indefinite suspension.  Cf. Disciplinary Counsel v. Boykin (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 
100, 694 N.E.2d 899, in which we noted the attorney’s previously stayed 
suspension in imposing an indefinite suspension for conduct that similarly included 
violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6), and 6-101(A)(3). 
 
We further adopt the recommendation of the board but modify it in order to 
account for respondent’s violation of her stayed six-month suspension, as well as 
our November 24, 1998 order revoking the stay.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  Because we have already found 
respondent in contempt of our July 1997 order and essentially revoked the stay in 
November 24, 1998, respondent’s indefinite suspension will commence six months 
following our November 24, 1998 revocation of the stay.  In addition, any petition 
for reinstatement by respondent is conditioned upon  (1) restitution to the 
complainants in the estate matter, (2) evidence establishing that respondent has 
received professional counseling or treatment for her depression and emotional 
problems and that she is emotionally fit to practice law, (3) completion of at least 
 
4
ten hours of approved continuing legal education on law office and practice 
management, and (4) payment of the costs and accrued interest specified in our 
November 24, 1998 order.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
FOOTNOTE: 
1. 
The board ordered relator to file specific verified documentation of the 
economic losses proximately caused by respondent in connection with the estate 
administration for purposes of determining the appropriate restitution within sixty 
days of issuance of its report, but relator did not file the requested information.