13.07.2015 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.

Case Summaries- 261disqualification. He then filed a request for the judge to recuse himself because <strong>of</strong> bias and he stated thatunless the judge recused himself the plaintiffs would be forced to file another affidavit <strong>of</strong> disqualification.Board found violations <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>.Cond.R. 3.1, 8.4(d) and 8.4(h), but did not find a violation <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>.Cond.R.8.4(c). The court agreed with the board. The court rejected respondent‘s arguments that his discoveryefforts were valid and directed at obtaining evidence to support a new claim for seeking the judge‘sdisqualification and that since the trial court did not rule his conduct frivolous or an abuse <strong>of</strong> process andthe judge‘s wife was not harmed, his conduct is not a <strong>disciplinary</strong> violation. As to Count Seven, amunicipal court case in which respondent and his wife were defendants was transferred to the commonpleas court and assigned to Judge Eyster. Respondent prepared for his wife to sign an affidavit <strong>of</strong>disqualification alleging that the judge violated Canon 3(E)(1), (a), (1)(c), (1)(d)(iv), and (2). Theaffidavit <strong>of</strong> disqualification was granted to avoid the appearance <strong>of</strong> impropriety: ―While I see no evidencein the record before me to suggest that Judge Eyster has shown any improper bias or prejudice in favor <strong>of</strong>the plaintiff, I conclude that he should not remain as trial judge on this case.‖ In re Disqualification <strong>of</strong>Eyster (Feb. 2, 2006), case No. 06-AP-2. The board found respondent‘s statements in the affidavit <strong>of</strong>disqualification to violate DR 1-102(A)(5), (A)(6), 7-102(A)(5), 7-102(A)(6) and Gov.Bar R. IV(2). Thecourt agreed. In mitigation, respondent has no prior <strong>disciplinary</strong> record, has made full and free disclosureto the board, and has demonstrated a pr<strong>of</strong>essional, respectful, and cooperative attitude in the <strong>disciplinary</strong>proceedings. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d). In aggravation, he had a dishonest and selfishmotive, a pattern <strong>of</strong> misconduct and multiple <strong>of</strong>fenses committed, repeatedly making false accusationsagainst judges, prosecutors, and assistant prosecutors, and utilized his position as a lawyer as a ―l icense toharass‖; he refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature <strong>of</strong> the misconduct; and there was vulnerabilityand harm to victims <strong>of</strong> his misconduct. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (g), (h). The boardadopted the recommendation <strong>of</strong> the panel‘s majority <strong>of</strong> an indefinite suspension. A dissenting panelmember would reject findings in counts three and Four <strong>of</strong> engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit andmisrepresentation and would recommend a two-year suspension with 18 months stayed, The dissentingpanel member cited his belief that respondent was ―generally remorseful‖ for conduct that occurred whenhe was a relatively inexperienced attorney and implied that the other panel members had not sufficientlydivorced their admiration for the respected jurist, who currently serves as the Board‘s chairman. Thecourt considered as an additional aggravating factor that respondent terminated his participation withOLAP through which he was under the care <strong>of</strong> a psychiatrist to regulate certain medications and workingwith a psychologist to control inappropriate aggression. The court found his conduct most similar toFrost (2009). The court agreed with the board that the appropriate sanction is an indefinite suspensionand so ordered, adding that because <strong>of</strong> concern that he has underlying mental-health issues that may havecontributed to the misconduct, he must comply not only with the reinstatement requirement in Gov.BarR. V(10)(B), but also provide pro<strong>of</strong> to a reasonable degree <strong>of</strong> medical certainty that he is mentally fitto return to the competent and ethical practice <strong>of</strong> law.Rules Violated: Pr<strong>of</strong>.Cond.R. 3.1, 3.5(a)(6), 8.2(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), 8.4(h); DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5),1-102(A)(6), 7-102(A)(4), 7-102(A)(5), 7-102(A)(6), 7-106(A), 7-106(C)(6), 8-102(B)Aggravation: (a), (b), (c), (d), (g), (h)Mitigation: (a), (d)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!