Trending
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.
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.
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."
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.