Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lavin - 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. Lavin, 92 Ohio St.3d 102, 2001-Ohio-159.]

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. LAVIN.
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lavin (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 102.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Converting funds
and filing false reports with the probate court.
(No. 00-2249 -- Submitted February 7, 2001 -- Decided June 13, 2001.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-65.
__________________

Per Curiam. On September 24, 1998, we suspended respondent, William
J. Lavin of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0017095, from the
practice of law after Lavin pled guilty to felony bank fraud in violation of Section
1344(2), Title 18, U.S.Code. In re Lavin (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1439, 700 N.E.2d
28. On December 6, 1999, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging respondent with several violations of the Disciplinary Rules.
Respondent answered, and the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board").

Based on stipulations and evidence received at a hearing, the panel found
that from June 1992 through the spring of 1996, respondent, who had been
appointed attorney for the guardianship account of a minor, Eric Bonner, wrote at
least forty checks totaling approximately $91,800 from the guardianship account
for his own use. Prior to July 1993, respondent transferred $100,000 from the
account of another client, Margaret Gallagher, to the Bonner account in order to
make a distribution of $89,000 to Bonner. In the spring of 1996, respondent
altered a cancelled check payable to himself for $100 to make it appear as though
it had been payable to Eric Bonner in the amount of nearly $97,000, thereby
indicating an additional large distribution to Bonner. To conceal his

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
appropriations from these accounts, respondent manufactured false bank
statements, purportedly from the Huntington National Bank, and filed those
statements with his accountings in the probate court.

On October 31, 1997, a United States district judge sentenced respondent
to fifteen months in prison for bank fraud and ordered restitution to Eric Bonner
in the amount of $91,800 and to Margaret Gallagher in the amount of $103,500.

The panel concluded that respondent's conduct 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)(6)
(engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's ability to practice
law), and 7-107(A)(8)1 (knowingly engaging in illegal conduct or conduct
contrary to a Disciplinary Rule while representing a client). The panel noted that
the probate surety, respondent's malpractice carrier, and the Ohio Clients'
Security Fund repaid the respondent's victims. The panel also noted that
respondent had shown regret and remorse for his actions, that since his release
from prison he was engaging in community service, and that he is continuing to
pay restitution in monthly amounts ranging from $50 to $150.

The panel recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of
law in Ohio. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation
of the panel.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and find it
remarkably similar to Disciplinary Counsel v. Wherry (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 584,
722 N.E.2d 515, where the lawyer converted funds and filed false reports with the
probate court. In that case, we reiterated what we had previously 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

1.
This Disciplinary Rule is accurately described but erroneously numbered in the complaint
and throughout the record. The correct Disciplinary Rule number for this violation is 7-102(A)(8).
2

January Term, 2001
that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases." We have
consistently held that the appropriate sanction when a lawyer knowingly converts
funds for the lawyer's benefit is disbarment. 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.
__________________
Ellen
Mandell, for relator.
__________________
3