Trending
ST. CLAIRSVILLE -- Area attorney John Robert Estadt has been suspended from practicing law for six months, according to filings by the Ohio Supreme Court.
It was alleged that Estadt charged a clearly excessive fee in an application for attorney's fees filed with the probate court, and made a false statement while doing so by signing another attorney's name without consent.
The High Court also ordered he immediately "cease and desist from the practice of law in any form and is hereby forbidden to appear on behalf of another before any court, judge, commission, board, administrative agency, or other public authority."
Estadt must also complete one credit hour of continuing legal education for each month of the suspension before being reinstated.
According to documents filed Wednesday, the Board of Professional Conduct recommended in February that Estadt be suspended from practicing law for six months. No objections were filed.
Until May 2021, Estadt was a member of the St. Clairsville law firm Hanlon, Estadt, McCormick & Schramm. In 2019 it was found that there were unclaimed funds in the estate of a man who died in 2010 with no known next of kin. In April 2019, Estadt reportedly began internally billing for work on the estate and signed another attorney's name on the application for authority to administer the estate. According to court documents, Estadt was paid $300 an hour, associates $200 per hour and paralegals $100 per hour. Estadt reportedly increased that fee to $400/$300/$200 per hour and increased his number of hours from 54 to 62.40.
The estate consisted of a grand total of $44,210.91. Estadt calculated total attorney fees he would request in the estate as $31,444.20 after a write-off, or collection exceeding fees earned by total hours, of $2,605.80.
In April 2021, Estadt filed a receipts and disbursements form indicating the estate had no remaining assets after the payment of attorney fees and other expenses.
In May 2021, fellow shareholders confronted Estadt about his increase of hourly rates and the use of another's signature. They asked him to sign a revised application for attorney fees that reflected the pre-bill total of $20,340. Estadt signed the form and was terminated from the firm.
Later that month, Belmont County Probate Court Judge Al Davies filed a judgment, deferring ruling until July 2021. In June 2021, Estadt found a surviving heir to the estate. Estadt would testify that he signed the other attorney's initials and that he "know(s) now that's improper."
According to documents, he said he did not intend to "pass off" his signature as the other attorney's since Estadt placed his initials next to the signature.
He testified that he told two of the other attorneys he intended to change the rates, stating: "Nothing would have to go back and it would benefit — the funds would benefit the firm. They wouldn't have to go back to the unclaimed fund." He said he believed it appropriate to adjust the fees retroactively. In answer to a question from Davies, Estadt said the goal was to obtain all the funds as fees for the firm. In July, Davies found the attorney's fees had been inflated to an amount equal to the estate proceeds, less costs and expenses.
An August 2021 judgment entry found that Estadt signed another attorney's name without authorization on the application for attorney's fees, and the amount of attorney fees requested "grossly exceeds the guidelines amount that were in effect under Local Rules of Court" and were "not reasonable and appropriate."
The judgment went on to state the number of hours may have been inflated given Estadt's experience. The estate administration was not difficult, Estadt was able to accept other cases during the two-year administration of the estate, and Estadt was not under time limits. Davies authorized $10,268.44 in attorney fees, not the $31,444.20 Estadt filed or the firm's revised estimation of $20,302.
The next of kin received $21,175.76. Estadt received none of the attorney fees.
The panel also found Estadt has refused to accept responsibility for his actions and had not searched with sufficient diligence for a living heir to the estate. The panel stated that with sufficient diligence the beneficiary should have been located earlier.