Opinion
D.D. No. 49
Decided March 4, 1964.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Obtaining money by false pretenses — Disciplinary action — Suspension from practice for indefinite time — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The relator, the Clermont County Bar Association, filed a complaint against the respondent, Thomas Stephen Ellis, charging him with misconduct as an attorney at law by reason of his commission and conviction of a crime which involved moral turpitude, i.e., obtaining money under false pretenses. That cause was tried to a jury which returned a verdict of guilty. A motion for a new trial was overruled, execution of sentence was suspended and respondent was placed on probation. No appeal has been taken.
The respondent admitted this charge, and the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found respondent guilty of misconduct as defined in Section 5 of Rule XXVII, in that he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period.
Objections were filed to the finding and recommendation of the board.
Mr. Stephen A. Durkee, for relator.
Mr. Clifford E. Adams and Mr. Robert D. Leggett, for respondent.
Respondent contends here that suspension from the practice of law for an indefinite period of time is too severe, and that he should be given a public reprimand. He did not testify at the hearing before the board and presents, for the first time before this court, claimed mitigating circumstances not urged before the board. He cites as authority the case of Dayton Bar Association v. Moore, 174 Ohio St. 21. In that case, the board found that respondent, Moore, had issued checks against insufficient funds and in so doing was guilty of misconduct, but there was no indictment or conviction. Moore was given a public reprimand.
The claimed mitigating circumstances urged by respondent should have been presented at the hearing before the board and not having been so presented cannot for the first time be asserted in and considered by this court.
This court, from a careful examination of the record and a consideration of the course of conduct of the respondent, is of the opinion that the board was neither in error nor unreasonable in its findings and recommendation. Therefore, the report of the board is confirmed, and judgment is rendered accordingly.
Report confirmed and judgment accordingly.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH and GIBSON, JJ., concur.
HERBERT, J., concurs except to the extent that the judgment should be a public reprimand.
MATTHIAS, J., not participating.