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

forfeiture of a $168 bond and was
charged with possession of drug
paraphernalia which was dismissed)
Burkholder (2/26/2009) (assault and
battery; threatening to commit
crimes; violating abuse-prevention
order)
Chambers (4/29/2010) (no contest plea to
aggravated disorderly conduct arising
from a dispute with neighbor)
Grigsby (3/31/2011) (misuse of credit
card)
Heiland (1/17/2008) (defrauding
creditors)
Kiesling (4/12/2010) (unlawful
accounting practices in violation of
R.C. 4701.14 (G), a first degree
misdemeanor)
Large (5/6/2009) (willingly failing to file
personal income tax returns)
LoDico (5/29/2008) (aggravated
Disciplinary Procedure/ Process Issues
Index- 368
menacing)
McFaul (12/13/2008) (drug possession)
Russo (2/25/2010) (disorderly conductintoxicated;
disorderly conductpersistent)
Treatment in Lieu of Conviction
Larkin (2/23/2011) (indicted for cocaine
and heroin possession and entered a
diversion program but did not
comply; judge returned case to active
docket)
Peskin (4/29/2010) (crack cocaine and
resisting arrest)
Rathburn (9/28/2010) (deception to
obtain a dangerous drug; illegal
processing of drug documents; both
fourth-degree felonies)
Walker (7/8/2008) (possession of
cocaine)
Allerding (10/29/2009) (court dismissed a
count in which board found violations
of DR 1-102(A)(6) and Prof.Cond.
R.8.4(h) because the neither the board‘s
finding or relator‘s complaint specified
in the count an act or omission)
Blair (2/24/2011) (court cited Freeman
(2008) in footnote 1 and noted that
when both former and current rules are
cited for the same act the allegation
constitutes a single ethical violation; the
court quoted Thompson (1982) that
mishandling clients‘ funds is of gravest
concern to the court in disciplinary
matters)
Brenner (7/29/2009) (court rejected
respondent‘s argument that DR 1-
102(A)(5) requires that misconduct take
place in an administrative or judicial
proceeding)
Boggs (6/7/2011) (Court will defer to the
panel‘s determinations of credibility
when those determinations are
supported by evidence)
Bunstine (10/13/2009) (court dismissed the
cause, noting that court was not bound
by panel or board and that relator did
not meet burden of proving violation by
clear and convincing evidence)
Campbell (7/15/2010) (court said a judge
who obtains information regarding
illegal conduct may relay to law
enforcement officials who may at their
discretion, elect to investigate,
respondent‘s conduct went beyond that
and became a participant in the
investigation; court found aggravating
factors that the parties had not
stipulated to and the board had not
made a finding)
Cantanzarite (8/14/2008) (clear and
convincing standard; deference to panel
determinations of credibility; purpose of
discipline to protect)
Chambers (4/29/2010) (court found that
respondent‘s conduct in attempting to
have a grievant dismiss the grievance
violated Prof.Cond. R. 8.4(d) and (h)
even though the grievant and
respondent never had an attorney client
relationship; relator noted it had
authority to investigate even if grievant
desired dismissal of grievant; court had
previously remanded case to board and
placed respondent on monitored
probation during the remand)
Character (6/23/2011) (Court noted that the
evidentiary requirements of Sebree
(2004) only apply in default cases; an
attorney is held to the ethical rules even
for actions that do not pertain to
practicing law; Court overruled
respondent‘s due process objectionsthat
her case was prejudiced by her
criminal prosecution and conviction, her
incarceration and inability to attend the
hearings, and the use of a two-member
panel)