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

Case Summaries- 280
jurisdictions that held that the rule does apply to an attorney as a party. The court also cited Stein (1972)
regarding personally and professional integrity and refraining from any illegal conduct. The court cited
R.C. 2921.12 regarding tampering with evidence. The court stated: Thus, in applying Prof.Cond.R.
3.4(a) to respondent‘s conduct as a party to litigation, we do not hold respondent to a higher standard that
a member of the general public. Instead, we recognize that respondent‘s conduct, be it in a personal or
professional capacity, demonstrates a lack of respect for the law that he has been sworn to uphold,
thereby undermining public confidence in our justice system. Therefore we conclude that the
prohibitions against the obstruction of access to evidence set forth in Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(a) apply with
equal force to attorneys acting in either a personal or professional capacity.‖ The Court thus accepted
the Board‘s finding a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(a). In mitigation, the Board found that respondent
lacked a prior disciplinary record, had an excellent reputation with charitable and political communities,
and had a generally good character, as evidence by over two dozen letters. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a)
and (e). In aggravation, the Board found that respondent: acted with a dishonest or selfish motive,
engaged in multiple offenses and a pattern of misconduct, and failed to acknowledge the wrongful nature
of his conduct. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), and (g). The panel recommended a one-year
suspension from the practice of law, but the Board recommended a two-year suspension from the
practice of law. Respondent objected to both, arguing that both ignored significant mitigating factors
and found unsupported aggravating factors and that his conduct caused no harm to his former employer
or his clients. The Court dismissed these objections. The court did not accept the Board‘s
recommended sanction, instead ordering the one- year suspension recommended by the panel. Two
justices dissented and would have suspended respondent for two years.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), 8.4(h)
Aggravation: (b), (c), (d), (g)
Mitigation: (a), (e)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: One-year suspension