Finder

A six-month suspension has been imposed by the Ohio Supreme Court.

In April 2019, a “finder” registered with the Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Unclaimed Funds, asked Estadt to assist him with a probate estate in Belmont County. See generally R.C. Chapter 169. The finder had discovered unclaimed funds held by the state on behalf of Morris W. Rees (“Rees”), a resident of Martins Ferry who died intestate on January 16, 2010. The unclaimed funds consisted of stock, dividends, bank accounts, life-insurance-premium funds, and the proceeds of a life-insurance policy under which Rees was the insured and his mother, Nell M. Rees (“Nell”), who had predeceased him, was the beneficiary. The total value of those assets was $42,834.85.

Estadt agreed to open an estate for receipt and distribution of the unclaimed funds and to pay the finder 10 percent of the amount recovered. Estadt immediately began internal billing through his firm, Hanlon, Estadt, McCormick, & Schramm Co., L.P.A.

Respondent got himself appointed as the estate administrator, a junior partner (Schramm)  as estate attorney and billed for his services.

No next of kin

In early September 2019, after Estadt asked Schramm to determine whether Rees had any next of kin, a paralegal generated a LexisNexis report on Rees. The report failed to identify any next of kin, and Schramm reported that result to Estadt. Neither Estadt nor Schramm took any other action at that time to identify any next of kin other than to have the probate court publish a notice of the hearing on the appointment of the fiduciary.

But he was candid and found an heir

when questioned by the probate-court judge during the hearing regarding his fees, Estadt freely admitted that believing there was no heir, he had inflated his fee in an effort to capture the full value of the probate estate. Estadt also undertook additional—albeit belated—efforts to rectify his misconduct by identifying and locating Suriano, who ultimately received approximately $21,000 from the estate, without Estadt’s receiving any portion of the fees.

Respondent billed for services

 Based on the testimony of Estadt, Schramm, and two shareholders in the firm, the probate court issued a judgment entry in which it found that Estadt knowingly, intentionally, and retroactively inflated his attorney fees to an amount equal to the estate proceeds, less the costs and expenses of administration. In addition, the probate court found that Estadt had signed Schramm’s name to the proposed judgment entry without his authorization.

Sanction

Despite Estadt’s far-fetched claim that he believed he was authorized to sign the name of another attorney in his firm to a court filing without that attorney’s consent—when he knew that the attorney opposed the filing—Estadt nonetheless freely admitted the facts of his misconduct. Given that fact, his otherwise unblemished 39-year legal career, and his loss of employment at the firm, we conclude that a six-month suspension from the practice of law is the appropriate sanction in this case.

Dissent of Justice Fischer

I concur in the majority opinion’s finding of violations and dissent as to the sanction imposed. Based on the facts found and the aggravating and mitigating factors present, the proper sanction under the analogous case law would be a one-year suspension with six months conditionally stayed

Justice  Brunner concurred. (Mike Frisch)