 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mahoning County Bar Association v. Sinclair12/29/2004
sconduct).
{ } Despite the magnitude of this misconduct, respondent contends that the mitigating features of his case, mainly his cooperation in the prosecution's case against Traficant, warrant a lesser sanction than indefinite suspension. Stressing that the disciplinary system exists to protect the public rather than punish offending lawyers, respondent essentially argues that a more rigorous sanction is unnecessary because he has promised not to pay kickbacks ever again. We disagree.
{ } Even after taking a lawyer's cooperation, contrition, and other evidence of mitigation into account, we have historically imposed at least an indefinite suspension when lawyers have paid a bribe to a public official. Disciplinary Counsel v. McClenaghan (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 21, 565 N.E.2d 572; Bar Assn. v. Greater Cleveland v. Italiano (1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 204, 494 N.E.2d 1113; Columbus Bar Assn. v. Gloeckner (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 83, 1 OBR 120, 437 N.E.2d 1197. In fact, we routinely indefinitely suspend lawyers who merely suggest that public officials may be subject to financial influence. Dayton Bar Assn. v. O'Brien; 103 Ohio St.3d 1, 2004-Ohio-3939, 812 N.E.2d 1263 (attorney indefinitely suspended for suggesting to client that judge would withdraw guilty plea for money); Columbus Bar Assn. v. Benis (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 199, 5 OBR 415, 449 N.E.2d 1305 (attorney indefinitely suspended for offering to influence a member of the governor's staff to get clemency for a client's husband); and Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Consoldane (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 337, 4 O.O.3d 477, 364 N.E.2d 279 (attorney indefinitely suspended for suggesting that he could obtain client's shock probation with a bribe). And contrary to respondent's argument, although these sanctions generally result in combination with a lawyer's conviction for influence-peddling, the fact of a conviction has never been critical to our disposition. Whether the lawyer is ultimately held criminally accountable or not, the lawyer's pledge to spurn such corruption is just as violated and the breach of that duty is just as threatening to the public interest.
{ } Moreover, as relator argues, the circumstances preceding respondent's decision to cooperate with federal authorities are not as extenuating as respondent asserts. Respondent did not alert the FBI about Traficant even when agents initially interviewed him on January 21, 2000, while investigating DiBlasio's affairs. By that time, respondent's payoffs to Traficant were routine. And after meeting with the FBI, respondent did not immediately seek legal counsel to help him consider cooperating. He instead reported the meeting to Traficant, who recommended that respondent refuse any further communication with the agency.
{ } Respondent did not heed Traficant's admonition, and on January 24, 2000, he met with FBI agents again. On that day, respondent again did not raise the possibility of his cooperation. To the contrary, when asked point-blank if he was paying off Traficant, respondent appeared shocked and offered nothing. The inquiring FBI agent recalled respondent's reaction:
{ } "When I asked him the question, he was very startled. He gave me what I thought was a thousand yard stare. I could tell he didn't know what to do at that point. He seemed very confused. He said something to the effect of I'm not going to help you get Traficant or something. He left the office. He ended the interview and left the office."
{ } After the second FBI meeting, respondent again reported to Traficant, who became very angry at the news. Then, in a ploy to avoid any surveillance devices, Traficant and respondent took another ride, drove around for hours, and at some point went t
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.
|
|