Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Mudrick

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Mudrick, 93 Ohio St.3d 621, 2001-Ohio-1885.] 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. MUDRICK. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Mudrick (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 621.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter — Failing to carry out contract for professional 
employment — Prejudicing or damaging client during course of 
professional relationship — Failing to maintain complete records of 
client funds in lawyer’s possession and render appropriate accounts — 
Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice — 
Withdrawing from employment before taking reasonable steps to avoid 
prejudice to the client and delivering to client all property to which 
client is entitled — Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 01-1178 — Submitted August 28, 2001 — Decided November 21, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-45. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On June 5, 2000, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a 
three-count complaint charging that respondent, Robert S. Mudrick of Akron, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0008330, had violated several provisions of the 
Code of Professional Responsibility and a Rule for the Government of the Bar.  
Respondent answered, and the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”). 
 
At a hearing on March 1, 2001, the panel received the stipulations of 
respondent admitting the factual matters alleged in the complaint.  Based on those 
stipulations and testimony and exhibits received at the hearing, the panel found 
that respondent was retained in 1991 by Richard C. Westfall to represent him as 
executor of the estate of Lewis T. Palmer.  Respondent thereafter allowed the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
estate to remain open for almost nine years despite numerous warning letters from 
the probate court, citations for failure to file an inventory, accounts, and annual 
status reports, and the imposition of a fine by the court.  Unable to contact 
respondent after numerous attempts, Westfall terminated respondent’s services.  
Not only did respondent fail to turn over the files and records of the estate to the 
successor attorney after he was terminated, but during the years of his 
representation, respondent also failed to prepare and file an Ohio estate tax return.  
The panel found that delay in the administration of the estate significantly 
damaged and prejudiced the beneficiaries of the estate. 
 
The panel further found that in 1994, Elizabeth W. Smith established the 
Wirz tuition trust to pay for the education of her grand nephew and grand niece 
and appointed respondent as trustee.  Smith paid respondent $20,000 to initially 
fund the trust and, from time to time, the beneficiaries received checks from 
respondent for their educational needs.  After Smith died in 1998, the 
beneficiaries asked respondent for an accounting but received no response. 
 
Finally, the panel found that the respondent failed to cooperate fully with 
relator’s investigation of these matters. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s actions and failures to act in the 
Palmer estate and the Wirz trust violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not 
neglect an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not intentionally 
fail to seek the lawful objectives of a client), 7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail 
to carry out a contract for professional employment), 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall 
not prejudice or damage his client during course of professional relationship), and 
9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds of a client 
coming into the lawyer’s possession and render appropriate accounts).  With 
respect to the Palmer estate, the panel found that respondent also violated DR 1-
102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice) and 2-110(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not withdraw from employment before 
January Term, 2001 
3 
taking reasonable steps to avoid prejudice to the client and delivering to the client 
all property to which the client is entitled).  The panel found that with respect to 
his failure to cooperate, respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney 
shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in an investigation or hearing), and that 
with respect to all the matters before the panel, he violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law). 
 
On January 25, 2001, we suspended respondent for an interim period 
based on his felony conviction for appropriating funds from the Wirz trust.  In re 
Mudrick (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1422, 741 N.E.2d 147.  In mitigation, the panel 
noted that respondent had not been involved in any previous disciplinary matters, 
that he showed remorse for his actions, and that he was suffering from depression 
and an anxiety disorder warranting psychiatric attention.  Respondent also had 
made partial restitution in the Wirz trust matter.  The panel recommended that 
respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio, with the 
indefinite suspension retroactive to January 25, 2001, and that a condition of any 
reinstatement be the payment of restitution of $11,869.12 to the Palmer estate and 
$8,005 to the Wirz trust. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the 
panel. 
 
Having reviewed the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations of the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio with the indefinite suspension retroactive to 
January 25, 2001.  A condition of any possible reinstatement is the payment of 
restitution of $11,869.12 to the Palmer estate and $8,005 to the Wirz trust, with 
interest at the judgment rate from January 25, 2001.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Peter T. Cahoon, Brian J. Moore and Howard S. Robbins, for relator.
 
John A. Casalinuovo, for respondent. 
__________________