 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mahoning County Bar Association v. Sinclair12/29/2004
nowledged that he had acted with poor judgment and dishonesty. Moreover, three character witnesses, including a United States attorney and FBI agent involved in Traficant's prosecution, and numerous reference letters confirmed respondent's good character and reputation for honesty apart from the underlying incidents. Finally, the panel found that respondent would never repeat his misconduct and had already paid a price for his wrongdoing -- he had been a leading witness in the four-year-long criminal investigation leading to Traficant's conviction. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f).
{ } Relator initially suggested that respondent be permanently disbarred for his misconduct. After the panel hearing, however, relator reconsidered and proposed an indefinite suspension. Respondent advocated a stayed suspension. The panel recommended a two-year suspension with the last 18 months stayed on the condition that respondent commit no further misconduct. The board recommended, "based on the nature and seriousness of the offenses," that respondent be suspended from the Ohio bar for two full years.
Review
{ } Objecting to the board's findings and recommendation, respondent argues that he did not violate DR 7-102(A)(6), (7), and (8) in preparing the quitclaim deed for Traficant. He also urges us to defer to the panel's recommended sanction or to be more lenient. Relator objects as well, arguing that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6) by leasing office space to Traficant as part of the bribery deal to get on Traficant's congressional staff. Relator urges us to indefinitely suspend respondent.
{ } Pursuant to our independent review in disciplinary cases, Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Reid (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 327, 708 N.E.2d 193, at paragraph one of the syllabus, we find that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6), first in paying Traficant kickbacks in exchange for employment and second in conceding to lease Traficant's office space as a part of the same deal. We also find, as did the board, that respondent violated these Disciplinary Rules a third time by concealing his name as the preparer of the quitclaim deed that he realized Traficant might use to avoid creditors. Finally, because respondent's admitted subornation and dishonesty manifest such a fundamental breach of his duty to the public, we find that an indefinite suspension is appropriate regardless of any concomitant violations of DR 7-102(A)(6), (7), or (8).
{ } Few offenses so calamitously violate the public trust placed in the legal profession as does the bribery of a public official. Whether or not a conviction results, this misconduct lays waste to the community's expectation that lawyers will exhibit "the highest standards of honesty and integrity," ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanction, (1991 & Amend.1992) 9, and contributes to the fear that lawyers will "take advantage of public trust if given the opportunity." Disciplinary Counsel v. Pizzedaz (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 486, 487, 628 N.E.2d 1359. We have therefore disbarred attorneys for bribery-related acts involving public officials. See Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Jurek (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 318, 581 N.E.2d 135 (attorney's bribing of bond commissioner to avoid random judicial assignments warranted permanent disbarrment); Disciplinary Counsel v. DiCarlantonio (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 479, 628 N.E.2d 1355 (city attorney who received $15,000 for his part in changing fire ordinance was disbarred), and Disciplinary Counsel v. Melamed (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 187, 580 N.E.2d 1077 (attorney disbarred for paying bribes to court's bond commissioner in order to obtain assignment of his cases to judges of his choice, among other mi
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.
|
|