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

Karris, Disciplinary Counsel v.
129 Ohio St.3d 499, 2011-Ohio-4243. Decided 9/1/2011.
Case Summaries- 152
Respondent improperly notarized four documents and falsely testified about it during a deposition. In
Count One, respondent notarized several documents that the party whose signature was purportedly on
the documents testified that she did not sign. The woman‘s husband at the time of the incident, now exhusband,
stated that he signed the documents, while the respondent testified that the wife signed the
instruments in his presence. A forensic document examiner supported the husband and wife‘s story.
This conduct was found to have violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (dishonestly, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adverse reflecting on fitness to practice law). In Count Two,
respondent was deposed and stated that the documents from Count One were signed by someone
claiming to be the woman, but that he did not request identification. Although this story is probably
untrue based on the forensic evidence in Count One, the panel and board dismissed the Count due to a
lack of clear and convincing evidence. The Court agreed with these findings. In aggravation,
respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses and failed to acknowledge
the wrongful nature of his conduct. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (g). In mitigation, respondent
lacked a prior disciplinary record and presented evidence of his good character. BCGD Proc.Reg.
10(B)(2)(a), (e). Relator sought a one-year suspension, respondent sought dismissal of the charges,
and the board recommended a public reprimand. Relator objected and stated that a six-month
suspension is commensurate with the Court‘s precedent. The Court noted that cases involving
dishonest usually warrant an actual suspension, but reviewed cases where exceptions to this rule have
been carved out. Reviewing Dougherty (2005) and Russell (2007), the Court noted that respondent
engaged in three separate acts of misconduct and refused to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his actions,
whereas the other cases revolved around one instance of misconduct and remorseful respondents. The
Court thus sustained relator‘s objection and imposed a six-month suspension.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6)
Aggravation: (c), (d), (g)
Mitigation: (a), (e)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension