Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. Theofilos
521 N.E.2d 797, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 81, 36 Ohio St. 3d 43 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney who receives assets from a deceased client's estate that would otherwise be inherited by the client's heirs commits a violation of professional disciplinary rules warranting a significant sanction, such as suspension from the practice of law.
Facts:
- A client of the respondent attorney passed away, leaving an estate.
- The deceased client had heirs who were legally entitled to inherit the assets within the estate.
- The respondent attorney received money and other assets from the deceased client's estate.
- Consequently, the assets received by the attorney did not pass to the client's rightful heirs.
Procedural Posture:
- A complaint was filed against the respondent attorney with the state's professional disciplinary board.
- The disciplinary board conducted a hearing and found that the respondent had violated a Disciplinary Rule.
- The board submitted its findings to the Supreme Court of Ohio and recommended a sanction.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio then reviewed the board's findings and recommendation to issue a final ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney violate professional disciplinary rules by receiving assets from a deceased client's estate that would otherwise have been inherited by the client's heirs?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. An attorney's conduct in receiving assets from a client's estate that should have gone to the rightful heirs is a violation of professional disciplinary rules. The court adopted the disciplinary board's findings that the respondent committed a violation. However, the court concluded that the respondent's misconduct warranted a more severe sanction than the one recommended by the board. Based on the seriousness of the violation, the court determined that a one-year suspension from the practice of law was the appropriate penalty.
Dissenting - Holmes, J.
Yes. While the attorney's conduct clearly violates professional rules, the sanction imposed by the majority is insufficient. In addition to suspension, the attorney should be required to return the monies and assets received from the estate to the individuals who would have otherwise inherited them. Making the rightful heirs whole should be a mandatory condition for the attorney's eventual reinstatement to the practice of law.
Analysis:
This case demonstrates a court's authority to independently determine and often increase sanctions in attorney disciplinary matters, even when adopting the factual findings of a lower disciplinary board. It affirms that an attorney's self-enrichment at the expense of a client's heirs is a severe breach of fiduciary duty. The dissent introduces an important consideration regarding the role of restitution in disciplinary proceedings, arguing that punishment should not only penalize the wrongdoer but also remedy the harm caused to the victims.
