Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROMANIW.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Disbarment -- Deliberate misappropriation of
funds from two guardianships for personal benefit.
(No. 98-384 -- Submitted June 24, 1998 -- Decided October 28, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-79.

In April 1995, the Cuyahoga County Probate Court appointed respondent,
Chrystine Romaniw of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0003596, as
guardian of the estate of Natalia Bojko, an eighty-one-year-old person adjudged
to be incompetent by reason of mental disability. Bojko died testate in February
1996. In December 1996, the court removed respondent as guardian of the Bojko
estate for failure to turn over estate assets and file a final account. Based upon a
report by the successor guardian, and after notice and an opportunity for a hearing
that respondent did not attend, the court found a shortage of $77,436.62 in the
Bojko guardianship account. The court also set aside an entry awarding fees to
respondent in the amount of $4,843.75 because the respondent had not performed
all the services set forth in her application. Finding that respondent improperly
and repeatedly used funds of the ward, Bojko, for respondent's own benefit, the
court ordered respondent to pay the successor guardian $77,436.62, plus fees,
expenses of his investigation, and court costs.

In December 1993, the Probate Court of Cuyahoga County appointed
respondent guardian of the person and property of Petro Lawrynec, an eighty-
three-year-old adjudged incompetent by reason of mental disability. Respondent
failed to file a timely account for the guardianship, and the probate court found her
in default and ordered that she file an account on or before October 10, 1996.

When respondent failed to file any account, she was removed as guardian of
Lawrynec in December 1996. As a result of a report by the successor guardian
and after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the court found that respondent
owed the guardianship $34,398.16. In addition, the court ordered respondent to
pay the successor guardian the fees, court costs, and expenses of his investigation.

On August 11, 1997, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint alleging that respondent's conduct with respect to the two guardianships
violated several Disciplinary Rules. After respondent filed her answer, the matter
was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court ("board").

The panel concluded that respondent's activities in the guardianships
violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude),
1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting
upon the ability to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal
matter), 7-101(A)(1) (intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of a
client), 7-101(A)(2) (intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment
entered into with a client) (Bojko estate only), 7-101(A)(3) (intentionally
damaging a client during the course of a professional relationship), 9-102(B)(3)
(failing to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties
of a client coming into the lawyer's possession and to render appropriate accounts
to the client regarding them), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing promptly to pay or deliver
to the client, as requested, the property in the possession of the lawyer which the
client is entitled to receive).

2

In mitigation the panel received evidence that respondent was suffering
from multiple sclerosis and that she used most of the money taken from the two
guardianships to support her children in college and in private secondary schools.

The panel recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of
law. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
panel.
__________________
Jonathan
E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Michael Tuan Bustamante and Sonali Bustamante Wilson, for respondent.
__________________
Per
Curiam. As we said in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio
St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899, "The continuing public confidence in the
judicial system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in
misappropriation cases." We find no mitigating circumstances here that would
justify an exception to that principle. 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.

3