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

Case Summaries- 282impulsive as respondent claimed. In mitigation, there was no prior discipline, he cooperated, thejuvenile court had sanctioned him, and character witnesses were presented. The Board did notspecifically find lack of selfish motive, but the Board opined that the same migrating factor as in Carrol(2005) were present and that case did include a lack of selfish motive. The court noted that lack ofselfish motive and the aggravating factor of dishonest or selfish motive are opposite sides of the samecoin. The court noted that the board found no aggravating factors. The court found that respondentcommitted multiple offenses. The court stated that it would not overturn the board‘s finding that therewas no pattern of misconduct (see footnote 4) though ―we think the board‘s conclusion that theaggravating factor of a pattern of misconduct was absent is debatable.‖ The court did overturn the Board‘sfinding that there was no dishonest or selfish motive. The court concluded that respondent exhibited aselfish or dishonest motive in misrepresenting to the juvenile court his role in violating the court‘s order,and later in writing a misleading letter to the unemployment-compensation bureau. BCGDProc.Reg.10(B)(1)(b). Relator urged the court to conclude that respondent made false statements duringthe disciplinary process when he downplayed his misstatements to the juvenile court in a letter to relator.The board declined to find this as an aggravating factor. The court did not disturb this finding,because this would seem inconsistent with relator‘s stipulation that respondent displayed a cooperativeattitude. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d). The court found that respondent, through his self-justification ofhis conduct by the results obtained, showed lack of remorse. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g). The courtcited cases wherein the court held that it would not allow attorney who lie to courts to continue practicewithout interruption. Herzog (1999), Batt (1997), Fowerbaugh (1995). In addition to his lack of priordiscipline, his prior sanction by the juvenile court, his cooperation, and testimonials, a judge and anattorney in a indigent legal assistance fund which respondent helped found testified regarding hisrepresentation of indigent clients. The court noted that respondent‘s service to indigent clients is apositive factor but it does not immunize a lawyer from discipline for misconduct, particularly conductinvolving dishonesty or false statement to a tribunal. The court concluded that respondent‘s acting indefiance of a court order, followed by a material misrepresentation to the court in explaining his conduct,and other misleading statements to a state agency concerning the same situation merits an actualsuspension. The court declined to adopt the board‘s recommended sanction and ordered a suspension forsix months.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), 8.4(h)Aggravation: (b), (d), (g)Mitigation: (a), (d), (e), (f)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension