Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Katalinas - 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 Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Katalinas, 90 Ohio St.3d 140, 2000-Ohio-37.]

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. KATALINAS.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Katalinas (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 140.]
Judges -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Managing financial affairs
for individual not a family member and refusing individual's demands for
return of his funds -- Engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude --
Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation -- Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice -- Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice
law -- Entering into business transaction with client having differing
interests -- Prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional
relationship -- Failing to deposit all client funds in an identifiable bank
account in which no funds of lawyer are deposited -- Failing to maintain
complete records of all property of client in lawyer's possession and
render proper accounts when requested -- Failing to deliver upon request
funds and property of client which client is entitled to receive.
(No. 00-781 -- Submitted July 6, 2000 -- Decided September 20, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-48.

On August 9, 1999, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint
charging respondent, Edward F. Katalinas of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0033651, with several violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Relator filed a motion for default
when respondent failed to answer, and the matter was referred to Master
Commissioner Harry White.

Based on the exhibits and affidavits attached to the motion for default, the
master commissioner found that in June 1994, while he was a sitting municipal
court judge, respondent agreed to manage the financial affairs of Donald A. Green,
a childhood friend. Green granted him a durable power of attorney and delivered
his United States Savings Bonds to Katalinas. Respondent redeemed the bonds
and treated the funds as a personal loan. Respondent also took control of Green's
bank accounts for his own personal use and ignored Green's demands for the
return of his funds.

In addition, the master commissioner found that in January 1998, Kenneth
Reese paid respondent a $200 retainer to vacate a legal separation and convert it
into a divorce action. Respondent did not file the papers and refused to return the
retainer to Reese.

The master commissioner also found that Michael and Melissa Palivoda
retained respondent to represent them in a civil action involving a motor vehicle

2

accident. Respondent filed a complaint, but the case was dismissed when
respondent failed to comply with discovery. When the Palivodas requested the
return of their case file, respondent demanded a payment of $5,000 and refused to
give up the file until contacted by an investigator for relator.

The master commissioner concluded that by his conduct respondent had
violated Canon 4(D)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct (a judge shall not serve as
a fiduciary except for a family member) and Canon 4(F) (a judge shall not practice
law except to give legal advice to or draft documents for a family member). He
also found that the same conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not
engage in conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-
102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice), 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on
fitness to practice law), 5-104(A) (a lawyer shall not enter into a business
transaction with a client if they have differing interests, unless the client consents
after full disclosure), 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not prejudice or damage a client
during the course of the professional relationship), 9-102(A) (a lawyer shall
deposit all client funds in an identifiable bank account in which no funds of the
lawyer are deposited), 9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all
property of the client in the lawyer's possession and render proper accounts when

3

requested), and 9-102(B)(4) (at the request of a client, a lawyer shall deliver funds
and property to the client which the client is entitled to receive).

The master commissioner found no mitigating circumstances and
recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in
Ohio. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme
Court adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the master
commissioner.

Keith A. Ashmus and Kevin M. Magnuson, for relator.
__________________
Per
Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the board. 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.

4