Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Wangul - 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

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. WANGUL.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Wangul (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Misappropriation of
client funds.
(No. 98-755 -- Submitted June 10, 1998 -- Decided September 30, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-94.

On December 9, 1996, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint
charging that respondent, Victor Wangul of Parma Heights, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0036788, violated several Disciplinary Rules while representing
the estates of Steve Pitorek and Helen Solanics. When relator's attempts to serve
respondent at his last known address were unsuccessful, relator served the Clerk of
the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). Respondent failed to answer
or otherwise plead within the time permitted by rule, and relator's motion for a
default judgment was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board").

Based on the exhibits and the affidavits attached to the motion, the panel
found that in February 1992, while respondent represented the estate of Helen
Solanics, whose executor had been Steve Pitorek, he was appointed executor
without bond of Pitorek's estate. During the administration of both estates,
respondent transferred $16,000 from the Pitorek estate to the estate of Solanics,
wrote checks to himself from the Pitorek estate, and commingled estate accounts
with payable-on-death accounts in the Pitorek estate. After respondent failed to
file an accounting and was removed as executor of the Pitorek estate, the probate
court, in April 1993, appointed Mary Haas McGraw as successor administrator.

In October 1993, the probate court entered judgment surcharging
respondent in the amount of $102,675, representing funds which respondent
improperly withdrew from the Pitorek estate during the course of his
administration, and $3,361.95 for attorney fees and expenses of the successor
administrator. Just prior to the surcharge order, respondent admitted to McGraw
that he owed the money to the estate and claimed that he would repay it. Since
that time respondent has not contacted McGraw.

The panel concluded that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a
lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving moral turpitude), (4) (a lawyer shall
not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation),
6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him), and 7-
101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not intentionally prejudice or damage his client). The
panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of
law. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
panel.
__________________

Donald Cybulski, for relator.
__________________
Per
Curiam. We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. The
appropriate sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment. Toledo
Bar Assn. v. Batt (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 189, 677 N.E.2d 349, and cases cited
therein. We find no mitigating circumstances here which would cause us to
deviate from imposing that sanction. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred
from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

2