 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mahoning County Bar Association v. Sinclair12/29/2004
o Traficant's office and switched vehicles. In the second vehicle, Traficant offered respondent envelopes of money in a plastic bag and suggested ways that he might explain the surplus funds to exonerate Traficant.
{ } They ended up in the basement of respondent's home, where Traficant removed $16,000 in cash from some 30 envelopes. Respondent recognized some of the envelopes as those that he had used to pay off Traficant, while others were marked with Traficant's initials in what respondent knew to be DiBlasio's handwriting. Traficant gave the money to respondent, and respondent took it. On Traficant's direction and in his presence, respondent afterward burned the envelopes in a concrete washtub with a butane torch.
{ } Respondent later returned to Traficant's office, where Traficant gave him another $2,500 in cash and some more envelopes. Respondent took the money and went home to burn the additional envelopes. Before he completely incinerated the envelopes, however, respondent put out the fire. Finally, respondent decided that what he was doing was wrong.
{ } Respondent cooperated as a witness for the prosecution against Traficant, and his testimony was instrumental in obtaining that conviction, as well as DiBlasio's eventual conviction for perjury. Moreover, respondent turned over the partially burned envelopes and money to the FBI before the agency offered him an agreement to proffer his story without incrimination. But as relator cogently submits, any mitigating effect of respondent's cooperation is decimated by the timing of his cooperation and the obvious rationale for providing it.
{ } Respondent profited for more than one year from paying graft to Traficant and leasing him office space. Not until the investigative noose began to tighten did respondent take action to stop the corruption, and only then to save himself from possible criminal liability. He succeeded. For the purpose of his testimony before the grand jury and trial, the prosecution granted respondent immunity from the use of his testimony at a subsequent criminal proceeding. Thus, as long as respondent did not perjure himself, he had slipped the hangman's knot.
{ } For these reasons, respondent's cooperation with federal authorities is of little mitigating effect. We also reject the finding that respondent's illicit association with Traficant represented an isolated incident rather than a pattern of misconduct or multiple offenses. Respondent and Traficant deliberated the consideration respondent would pay for his job and then executed the payment plan for more than one year. Respondent also concealed his preparation of the quitclaim deed for Traficant. Moreover, these acts clearly constitute the multistep course of conduct for which an actual suspension must be imposed. Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaffer, 98 Ohio St.3d 342, 2003-Ohio-1008, 785 N.E.2d 429.
{ } We do, however, accept all the other factors listed by the panel and board as mitigating. Thus, having found that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6) relative to the bribery deal, which included the kickbacks and the lease of office space, and in preparing the misleading quitclaim deed, we temper our disposition and do not disbar respondent. Respondent is instead indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR and O'DONNELL, JJ., concur.
|