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

Case Summaries- 180argued these factors at oral argument and requested to voluntarily resign. The Supreme Court overruledrespondent‘s objections and denied the request. The court noted its holding in Sterner (1996) thatGov.Bar R. V ―has no provision for the introduction of evidence in the brief filed in this court or in theoral argument to this court and ―[o]ny in the most exceptional circumstances would we accept additionalevidence at that late stage of the proceedings.‖ Accord Finneran (1997). The court noted noexceptional circumstances are present here. The court stated that ―[l]awyers resorting to resignationduring disciplinary proceedings should therefore resign at the beginning of the proceedings. . . . Rarelywill this court accept a resignation tendered at the end of the proceeding, when the benefit to the publicand the disciplinary process no longer remains.‖ See Holder (2006). The Supreme Court agreed with theboard and ordered permanent disbarment. One justice in dissent would have accepted respondent‘s offerof resignation.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 8.4(c), 8.4(d), 8.4(h); DR 6-101(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)Aggravation: NONEMitigation: NONEPrior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment