04.09.2014 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Williams, Disciplinary Counsel v.<br />

130 <strong>Ohio</strong> St.3d 341, 2011-<strong>Ohio</strong>-5163. Decided 10/13/2011.<br />

Case Summaries- 353<br />

Respondent was convicted <strong>of</strong> child rape. Respondent was currently under suspension for failing to meet<br />

the CLE requirements (2003) and for failing to register (2005). Although Respondent initially responded<br />

to relator‘s complaint, he did not respond to subsequent communication attempts. A master<br />

commissioner made findings <strong>of</strong> fact, conclusions <strong>of</strong> law, and a recommended sanction. In June<br />

2008, respondent was indicted on three counts <strong>of</strong> child rape and one count <strong>of</strong> kidnapping with a<br />

sexual motivation. The end result was two convictions for rape and two concurrent life sentences. This<br />

conduct was found to have violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct involving moral turpitude) and 1-<br />

102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely reflects on lawyer‘s fitness to practice). The only mitigating factor<br />

present was the imposition <strong>of</strong> prior sanctions. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f). In aggravation, the board<br />

found a pattern <strong>of</strong> misconduct involving multiple <strong>of</strong>fenses, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature<br />

<strong>of</strong> respondent‘s conduct, and harm to a vulnerable victim. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (g), and<br />

(h). The <strong>Court</strong> also found a dishonest and selfish motive, and a failure to cooperate in the <strong>disciplinary</strong><br />

process. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) and (e). The relator, the master commissioner and the board<br />

all recommended disbarment. The <strong>Court</strong> noted that disbarment is appropriate for violations <strong>of</strong> DR 1-<br />

102 that result in a felony conviction, including reckless homicide, attempted murder, and murder. See<br />

Zemba (2002), Rocker (1999), Riebel (1990), Steele (1981). The <strong>Court</strong> held that ―permanent disbarment<br />

is the only appropriate sanction for an attorney convicted <strong>of</strong> raping a child,‖ and thus permanently<br />

disbarred the respondent.<br />

Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(6)<br />

Aggravation: (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h) Mitigation: (f)<br />

Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: YES<br />

Public Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!