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

Bennett, Disciplinary Counsel v.
124 Ohio St.3d 314, 2010-Ohio-313. Decided 2/4/2010.
Case Summaries- 20
In 2007, respondent pled guilty to a felony for unlawfully structuring financial transactions and was
sentenced to 24 months in prison and a $4,000 fine. In 2008, respondent received an interim felony
suspension from the practice of law in In re Bennett, 117 Ohio St.3d 1401, 2008-Ohio-594. Federal
laws and regulations require domestic financial institutions to prepare and file a certain form whenever
they are involved in a payment, receipt, or transaction of U.S. Currency exceeding $10,000. Respondent
was aware of this regulation and structured several transactions, meaning that he would break larger
transactions into a series of transactions that were under $10,000 and thus avoid the reporting.
Respondent did this with approximately $124,300 over a five-month span by depositing amounts in
several branches of Fifth Third Bank in Cincinnati. A majority of the money was respondent had
obtained from previously cashed paychecks issued to respondent from his employer. A certain
unspecified portion of the currency transactions originated from income respondent received but
improperly failed to report and account to the IRS. As part of his plea agreement, he agreed that if
necessary he would file corrected federal income tax returns within 120 days of the plea, but at the date
of the stipulations neither the IRS nor the U.S. Department of Probation had advised him of the need to
amend his taxes. Respondent stipulated to these facts and to violating DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6). The
board adopted the panel‘s findings of violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6) and recommended sanction of
a one-year suspension with credit for time served. In mitigation, respondent had: a lack of prior
disciplinary record, provided full and free disclosure and a cooperative attitude, and offered positive
character evidence. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (e). Also, the parties stipulated as mitigation
respondent‘s previous penalties and sanction, including a fine and jail time related to his criminal
sentence. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f). The Court found that respondent‘s previous punishment was
only for a portion of the violations he committed thus reducing the weight of that mitigating factor.
The Court also found aggravating factors that the parties, panel, and board do not mention including that
respondent had: a pattern of misconduct and a dishonest and selfish motive. BCGD Proc.Reg.
10(B)(1)(b) and (c). The Court rejected the Board‘s recommended sanction, instead imposing an
indefinite suspension with credit for time served. Justice Pfeifer dissented; he would have adopted the
Board‘s recommended sanction.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6)
Aggravation: (b), (c)
Mitigation: (a), (d), (e), (f)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: YES
Public Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension