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

Case Summaries- 180
argued these factors at oral argument and requested to voluntarily resign. The Supreme Court overruled
respondent‘s objections and denied the request. The court noted its holding in Sterner (1996) that
Gov.Bar R. V ―has no provision for the introduction of evidence in the brief filed in this court or in the
oral argument to this court and ―[o]ny in the most exceptional circumstances would we accept additional
evidence at that late stage of the proceedings.‖ Accord Finneran (1997). The court noted no
exceptional circumstances are present here. The court stated that ―[l]awyers resorting to resignation
during disciplinary proceedings should therefore resign at the beginning of the proceedings. . . . Rarely
will this court accept a resignation tendered at the end of the proceeding, when the benefit to the public
and the disciplinary process no longer remains.‖ See Holder (2006). The Supreme Court agreed with the
board and ordered permanent disbarment. One justice in dissent would have accepted respondent‘s offer
of resignation.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 8.4(c), 8.4(d), 8.4(h); DR 6-101(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-
102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
Aggravation: NONE
Mitigation: NONE
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment