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

Case Summaries- 111presented evidence of his otherwise good character and reputation. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d),and (e). The panel recommended a two- year suspension, with 18 months stayed under the condition ofmonitored probation. Finding a harsher sanction appropriate, the board recommended a two yearsuspension, with one year stayed, and expressed a desire to hold respondent accountable to Oehlers,despite the discharge of his indebtedness in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court disagreed with the board.The Court noted, as the panel and board acknowledged that Ohio has taken the position of not holdinglawyers responsible for restitution that has been discharged through bankruptcy. See Gay (2002) andGerren (2006). To safeguard the public and deter other unseasoned lawyers from unsupervisedpractice in areas in which they have insufficient legal expertise, the Supreme Court ordered a two-yearsuspension, with 18 months stayed under the condition of monitored probation during which time heaccept only cases within his experience level or arrange for competent co-counsel. Justice LundbergStratton, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed with the majority‘s holding except that shewould also require respondent to pay $280,000 in restitution as a condition of reinstating his license.Chief Justice Moyer dissented finding respondent‘s actions were based on self-interest and warrantedthe stricter sanction recommended by the board. Justices O‘Connor and Lanzinger concurred with theChief Justice‘s dissent.Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(3)Aggravation: (b), (h), (i)Mitigation: (a), (d), (e)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Two-year suspension, 18 months stayed