 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mahoning County Bar Association v. Sinclair12/29/2004
im that conflict-of-interest regulations precluded a congressional staff member from leasing property to a congressman, respondent instead used a trade name registered to his wife, KAS Enterprises, to act as the buyer. Respondent claimed that he thought this arrangement was necessary to comply with, rather than circumvent, congressional ethical regulations.
{ } Over the next year or so, until January 2000, Traficant leased office space from KAS Enterprises in accordance with his and respondent's agreement. Also during this period, respondent paid Traficant over $32,000 in 13 or 14 monthly installments of $2,500. Unlike DiBlasio, however, respondent deposited his paycheck and then withdrew Traficant's kickback, leaving bank statements that would eventually be used to prosecute Traficant. Traficant, in turn, paid $656 ($6/sq. ft.) per month, apparently a fair price, for renting his expanded office suite.
{ } While working for Traficant as his administrative aide and counsel, respondent assisted Traficant in deeding some rural property, referred to as Traficant's farm, to Traficant's daughter. In or around December 1999, respondent prepared a quitclaim deed; however, he did not sign it as the preparer in the space provided because he "didn't feel comfortable" having his name on the document. Respondent was uncomfortable because he knew of tax judgments against Traficant and that Traficant was trying to hide assets from creditors and he feared that transferring this property might constitute a fraudulent conveyance. As a result, he identified Traficant on the deed as the preparer. The deed was later recorded and apparently has not been challenged.
{ } The parties stipulated, the panel agreed, and the board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 1-102(A)(6) by making kickbacks to Traficant. Rejecting respondent's claim that he was not acting as Traficant's attorney when he prepared the quitclaim deed, the panel and board also found clear and convincing evidence that he had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 7-102(A)(6), 7-102(A)(7), and 7-102(A)(8) by concealing this service. Finally, the panel did not find that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6) by leasing Traficant office space, and the board adopted this finding.
Sanction
{ } In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel considered the aggravating and mitigating features of respondent's case. See Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline ("BCGD Proc.Reg."). In aggravation, the panel found that respondent had a prior disciplinary record for failing to make required disclosures in direct mail solicitations. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a). And although respondent accepted Traficant's job offer in part because of DiBlasio's retirement and although Traficant had implied that the $2,500 payments were merely "loans," the panel found that respondent knew in his heart that the payments were wrong or illegal. On the other hand, the panel did not find a pattern of misconduct or multiple offenses even though respondent had paid Traficant kickbacks for over one year, concluding instead that the whole transaction was one isolated incident. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d).
{ } In mitigation, the panel found that respondent had made a good faith effort to rectify the consequences of his misconduct inasmuch as he had cooperated in the government's prosecution and testified against Traficant. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c). Respondent had also fully and freely disclosed his transgressions during the disciplinary process, expressed remorse for his misconduct, and ack
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|