04.09.2014 Views

disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Case Summaries- 118<br />

v. Klein (1967), 385 U.S. 511 is misplaced. His failure to cooperate stemmed from events occurring<br />

before he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege at the panel hearing. The court also rejected his claim<br />

that his due process right was violated when relator was allowed to amend the complaint less than 30<br />

days before the hearing and respondent was given less than 20 days to answer the amended complaint.<br />

The court noted that the standards <strong>of</strong> due process in a <strong>disciplinary</strong> proceeding are not equal to those in<br />

a criminal matter, that a <strong>disciplinary</strong> proceeding is instituted to safeguard the courts and to protect the<br />

public from misconduct and is neither a criminal nor a civil proceeding. Gov.Bar R. V(6)(E) provides a<br />

respondent with 20 days to answer a complaint, but there is no such requirement for an amended<br />

complaint. Gov.Bar R. V(11)(D) states complaints may be amended at any time prior to final order <strong>of</strong><br />

the court and the party affected by the amendment ―shall be given reasonable opportunity to meet any<br />

new matter presented.‖ Respondent had ample opportunity to respond. Gov.Bar R. V and the<br />

regulations are to be construed liberally for the protection <strong>of</strong> the public, the courts, and the legal<br />

pr<strong>of</strong>ession. The court found respondent‘s conduct regarding promising but not producing the tax<br />

returns on several occasions gave panel had good cause to grant relator‘s motion to amend the<br />

complaint within 30 days <strong>of</strong> the hearing. The court rejected respondent‘s other objections as to a finding<br />

<strong>of</strong> a violation <strong>of</strong> DR 1-102(A)(4) in Count III and he objection to the recommended sanction <strong>of</strong> an<br />

indefinite suspension. <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ohio</strong> adopted the Board‘s findings <strong>of</strong> misconduct and<br />

recommended sanction <strong>of</strong> an indefinite suspension and so ordered.<br />

Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 9-102(B)(3); Gov.Bar R.<br />

V(4)(G)<br />

Aggravation: (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) Mitigation: (a), (f)<br />

Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: YES<br />

Public Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!