Opinion
D.D. No. 30
Decided May 2, 1962.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disciplinary action — Disbarment — Conduct warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The relator, the Columbus Bar Association, filed a complaint against the respondent, Emanuel Harold Lieberman, charging him with misconduct in violation of the laws of Ohio and the Canons of Professional Ethics and setting forth four specific charges of misconduct: (1) That, in 1959, with intent to corrupt or influence a witness, with respect to her testimony in a proceeding pending before a grand jury, respondent offered or promised to give her a thing of value; (2) that, in 1960, the respondent was found guilty of the commission of the offense charged in the first specification; (3) that, in 1959, the respondent corruptly attempted to influence a witness in a proceeding pending before a grand jury and corruptly attempted to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice; and (4) that, in 1960, the respondent was found guilty of the commission of the offense charged in the third specification.
A hearing was had before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The board found that the respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1929, for several years practiced in Cuyahoga County, and for the several years last past practiced in Franklin County; that, in 1936, charges were filed against him in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County and he was found guilty of solicitation of employment in three instances, one in 1930 and two in 1934, misappropriation of money received from a client in 1930, misappropriation of money received from an insurance company in settlement of a claim for fire loss in 1934, misappropriation of money from a client in 1934, and from another client in 1936; that, in June 1937, the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County entered a finding of guilty on four of the counts above referred to and entered an order of complete disbarment; that, in October 1937, the disbarment order was amended and modified so as to provide for a suspension for two years, reinstatement being conditioned on restitution to one of his clients of $300, with which respondent was unable to show compliance for a period of about seven years; and that on January 8, 1945, the court found the required restitution had been made and reinstated respondent to the practice of law.
The board found further that in 1953 another complaint was filed against respondent in the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County and was heard by a three-judge court; that the court found respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct involving moral turpitude, including solicitation of employment in three instances in 1952 and 1953, misappropriation of money produced by the wife of one client with which to obtain a bond, and misappropriation of money from another client in 1953, and entered an order of disbarment; and that the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, and on appeal to this court the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed and the cause remanded ( In re Disbarment of Lieberman, 163 Ohio St. 35), and the cause was finally terminated by an order of the Common Pleas Court suspending respondent for one year, which suspension terminated in May 1957.
As to the complaint in the instant case filed April 27, 1960, setting forth four specific charges of misconduct, the board's findings disclose that prior to the hearing before the panel an order was entered authorizing the hearing to proceed on charges two and four; that during the hearing a motion was sustained permitting withdrawal of charges one and three without prejudice, and the hearing proceeded on charges two and four: that it was stipulated that respondent was found guilty of both offenses charged in the criminal division of the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County; that the conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals; that the Supreme Court overruled respondent's motion for leave to appeal and dismissed his appeal as of right; that respondent's request for a rehearing had not been ruled upon on the date of the hearing before the hearing panel; and that meanwhile respondent was under sentence to serve 60 days in jail and pay a fine of $500, but execution was stayed by bond.
Respondent's defense is that his conviction is not final and will not be final until this court has passed on the case after rehearing or has denied a rehearing, and further appeal to the federal Supreme Court is prosecuted and carried to a conclusion.
The board found "that the respondent has now been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule XXVII, and that discipline should be administered to the respondent without awaiting further court action in respect to the charges."
The board, in its report, recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.
The matter is now before this court for consideration of the report of the board of commissioners and the objections of the respondent.
Mr. Joseph R. Doelker, Mr. James C. Justice and Mr. Richard L. Loveland, for relator.
Mr. Emanuel Harold Lieberman, in propria persona.
This court, from a careful examination of the record and a consideration of the long continued course of conduct of respondent, is of the opinion that the board was neither in error nor unreasonable in its findings or recommendation. Therefore, the objections are overruled, the report of the board is confirmed, and judgment is rendered accordingly.
Report confirmed and judgment accordingly.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL, GRIFFITH and O'NEILL, JJ., concur.
GRIFFITH, J., of the Seventh Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of HERBERT, J.