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

Mitchell, Disciplinary Counsel v.
124 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-135. Decided 1/26/2010.
Case Summaries- 221
Respondent attempted to represent a juvenile in a proceeding while under a suspended license and
provided false information to the magistrate during the proceeding to conceal the suspension. Respondent
was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1988, but abandoned the practice in 1992. Respondent had
not renewed his license since 1995 and had been suspended since December 2, 2005 for failing to
register. In January 2008, Respondent attempted to represent a co-worker‘s daughter before the Greene
County Juvenile Court. During a pretrial conversation between the assistant prosecutor and respondent,
the assistant prosecutor began to doubt whether Respondent was an attorney and alerted the magistrate.
The magistrate checked the attorney-registration records and could not find the respondent. In response to
a question from the magistrate, respondent provided a false middle name to avoid detection of his
suspended license. When the magistrate informed respondent she found no attorney under the name
respondent provided, respondent then falsely stated that he was licensed in Kentucky. The magistrate
excused the respondent from her courtroom for being unlicensed to practice in Ohio. Respondent
admitted these facts during a deposition taken as part of this investigation. He said that prior to the
court appearance the woman and child did not know of his suspension. He characterized his conduct as
―stupid.‖ He said he understood the gravity of the misconduct and that he had not provided legal
representation to anyone else since his suspension. He did not answer the disciplinary complaint.. A
master commissioner granted relator‘s motion for default and made findings, conclusions, and a
recommended sanction which the Board adopted. The Board found respondent violated Prof.Cond.R.
3.3(a)(1), 5.5(b)(2), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h). The Board observed that respondent remained in
violation of his duties under Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) and (D). In aggravation, the Board found the
respondent‘s past registration suspension. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a). In a footnote, the court stated
that the Board noted respondent had also been under a CLE suspension since December 4, 2003, but a
sanction under that rule is not to be considered in the imposition of a disciplinary sanction. In
mitigation, the Board cited respondent‘s cooperation in attending the deposition and making admissions.
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d). The Board recommended an indefinite suspension. The Supreme Court
agreed with the Board‘s findings and recommended sanction, and so ordered.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1), 5.5(b)(2), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), 8.4(h)
Aggravation: (a)
Mitigation: (d)
Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension