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

Case Summaries- 304
involvement, payment of restitution, and furtherance of his OLAP contract. He contended that he was
not capable of either obtaining counsel or presenting mitigation because of emotional distress, extreme
financial difficulties, and inexperience in dealing with disciplinary matters. The court cited cases where
respondent was permitted to supplement the record. But, the court noted that respondent has had two
opportunities to present evidence-when he failed to appear at the first date of the panel hearing, the panel
delayed ruling and he was given a second chance to present his case. He was advised by an OLAP
employee to obtain counsel, but he appeared pro se. Respondent also contended that the sanction from
the Board was too severe and that the board erroneously departed from the pane‘s recommended
sanction based upon its finding that he had committed ―serious acts of fraud.‖ The court agreed that the
board‘s finding of ―serious acts of fraud‖ is not supported by the record and cannot support its upward
deviation the panel‘s recommended sanction. The court agreed with the panel‘s recommended sanction
and ordered a suspension for two years, with one year stayed on the conditions that he commit no
further misconduct, pay restitution of $1,200 to the client in Count IV, and either pay restitution of
$12,250 to estate of the client in Count II, or submit evidence that the financial obligation was discharged
in bankruptcy. One justice dissented and would have suspended the respondent for two years.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c), 8.4(d), 8.4(h); DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 5-101(A)(1), 5-
101(A)(2), 5-104(A)
Aggravation: (c), (d), (h), (i)
Mitigation: (a)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Two-year suspension, 12 months stayed