Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Weirich - 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

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Weirich, 89 Ohio St.3d 115, 2000-Ohio-121.]

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. WEIRICH.
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Weirich (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 115.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Engaging in conduct
that adversely reflects on ability to practice law -- Accepting employment
when the exercise of professional judgment may be affected by financial,
business, or personal interests -- Practicing law in violation of the
regulations of the profession -- Failing to cooperate in the investigation of
a disciplinary matter -- Failing to register with the Supreme Court.
(No. 99-1897 -- Submitted February 9, 2000 -- Decided May 31, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-10.

In February 1995, respondent, William C. Weirich of Euclid, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0038122, began managing the affairs of Alfons Albert Skeivis
pursuant to a power of attorney. Skeivis was confined to a nursing home and could
not take care of his own finances. Also, as Skeivis's attorney, respondent billed
Skeivis for his legal services and paid himself from Skeivis's accounts. During
1995 and 1996, respondent also owned a business known as Northpoint
Renovation and Remodeling ("Northpoint").

In 1995 and 1996, respondent failed to pay the bills submitted by the nursing
home where Skeivis resided. During those years, respondent also began to neglect
paying the utilities and other expenses incurred with respect to the home owned by
Skeivis. However, in 1996, respondent arranged for repairs to Skeivis's home to
be made by Northpoint and paid for those repairs from Skeivis's account.

On February 17, 1998, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging that respondent's conduct violated several rules of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The complaint also charged that respondent violated
the Rules for the Government of the Bar by failing to cooperate with relator's
investigation of the grievance filed against him and by failing to register with the
Supreme Court for the 1995-1997 biennium. Respondent did not respond timely
to the complaint, and finally filed an answer only after relator had moved for
default judgment. After the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board"),
respondent failed to appear for a scheduled deposition, failed to provide complete
discovery as requested by relator, and failed to appear at the hearing before the
panel, at which relator presented evidence to support the complaint.

The panel found that respondent had received notice of the hearing and had
an opportunity to appear and present his case. It further found the facts as stated
above and concluded that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(1) (violation

2

of a Disciplinary Rule), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects
on the attorney's ability to practice law), 5-101(A)(1) (accepting employment
when the exercise of professional judgment may be affected by financial, business,
or personal interests), 3-101(B) (practicing law in violation of the regulations of
the profession), Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in the investigation of a
disciplinary matter), and VI(1) (failing to register with the Supreme Court). The
panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of
law in Ohio.

The board adopted the findings of fact and the conclusions of the panel that
respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 5-101(A)(1), and 3-101(B), and
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and VI(1). The board also adopted the panel's
recommendation that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of
law.
__________________

Howard A. Schulman and Robert J. Vecchio, for relator.

William C. Weirich, pro se.
__________________

Per Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in
Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.

3