Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Kral

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Kral, 90 Ohio St.3d 298, 2000-Ohio-77.] 
 
 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. KRAL. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Kral (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 298.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Willfully concealing 
and not accounting to probate court and successor administrator for 
substantial amount of estate assets in the form of stocks and bank accounts 
— Failing to cooperate in grievance investigation. 
(No. 00-784 — Submitted July 6, 2000 — Decided November 8, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-37. 
 
On June 7, 1999, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a two-count 
complaint charging respondent, Joseph Alan Kral of Strongsville, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0019883, with numerous violations of Disciplinary Rules and the 
Rules for the Government of the Bar.  Respondent failed to answer the complaint, 
and relator filed a motion for default, which was referred to Master Commissioner 
Harry W. White. 
 
On the basis of the complaint, the master commissioner found that on 
October 15, 1991, respondent was appointed attorney-in-fact for Stephen E. 
Loughead and gained control of his assets.  Respondent periodically provided an 
 
 
2 
accounting of his transactions on behalf of Stephen Loughead to his principal’s 
son, Lawrence. 
 
Stephen Loughead died on November 23, 1995, and on March 1, 1996, 
respondent presented the will of Stephen Loughead for probate in Cuyahoga 
County.  When Lawrence Loughead was appointed executor of the estate, he did 
not hire an attorney, and so respondent acted as the attorney for the estate. 
 
After respondent failed to prepare and file a timely accounting on behalf of 
the executor, the probate court appointed attorney Michael E. Murman as successor 
administrator on June 22, 1998.  Upon investigation, Murman determined that 
there was no accounting for a substantial amount of estate assets in the form of 
stocks and bank accounts that had previously been under the control of respondent.  
Murman repeatedly attempted to obtain estate records from respondent but 
respondent failed to provide them. 
 
In August 1998, Murman filed a complaint in the probate court against 
respondent and in February 1999, the court found that respondent had willfully 
concealed assets of the estate.  It entered judgment in favor of Murman as 
administrator and against respondent in the amount of $308,612.76. 
 
The master commissioner further found that after Murman filed a grievance 
with relator, respondent failed to respond to relator’s two letters of inquiry and to 
two subpoenas duces tecum. 
 
 
3 
 
The master commissioner concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 
1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), DR 1-
102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects 
on fitness to practice law), DR 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver 
client funds), DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to 
the attorney), DR 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of employment for 
professional services), DR 7-101(A)(3) (causing prejudice or damage to a client as 
the result of a professional relationship), DR 9-102(B)(3) (failing to render 
appropriate accounting of client funds), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to 
cooperate in a grievance investigation). 
 
The master commissioner recommended that the respondent be permanently 
disbarred from the practice of law. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the 
master commissioner. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, John K. McManus and Stacy 
Solochak Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
 
4 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 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.