Case Name: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bertram
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1999-03-17
Citations: 85 Ohio St. 3d 113
Docket Number: No. 98-2638
Parties: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bertram.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 85
Pages: 113–115

Head Matter:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bertram.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bertram (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 113.]
(No. 98-2638
Submitted January 27, 1999
Decided March 17, 1999.)
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
William H, Bertram, Jr., pro se.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. "The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases." Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899. Therefore, as respondent concedes, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for respondent's misappropriation of millions of dollars of his business's escrow accounts for his personal benefit. See Disciplinary Counsel v. DiCarlantonio (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 479, 628 N.E.2d 1355, in which we permanently disbarred an attorney for comparable conduct violating DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), and 1-102(A)(6), and resulting in federal felony convictions. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.