Opinion
D.D. No. 101
Decided April 29, 1970.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct warranting suspension from practice for indefinite period — Asserting personal beliefs in justice of case — Wrongfully and maliciously attacking judicial system — Charging trial judge with fraud and acting without jurisdiction.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The Cincinnati Bar Association filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, charging respondent, Robert Bednarczuk, with misconduct as an attorney. The complaint alleges that the misconduct consisted of failing to maintain a respectful attitude toward the courts; improperly asserting in a legal action his personal belief in the justice of the case; displaying a lack of candor and fairness before the courts; unjustifiably initiating and prosecuting a civil action merely for harassment; rendering advice and service involving disloyalty to the law and disrespect of the judicial officer and a court of justice; and failing to uphold the honor and maintain the dignity of the profession. By reason of such conduct, the complaint charged that respondent violated Canons 1, 15, 22, 29, 30 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
On June 16, 1969, a hearing was held before the duly appointed hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The relevant findings adopted by the board are: as a result of his clients' receiving a disappointing jury verdict in a personal injury action in the Court of Common Pleas, respondent filed an action on behalf of his clients in the United States District Court against various defendants, including the trial judge, charging that the trial judge caused damage to the plaintiffs because he intentionally and maliciously deprived the plaintiffs of their constitutional rights and that he wrongfully, actively, and intentionally aided a conspiracy between defendant insurance companies and defendant officials of the state of Ohio.
In the federal case a memorandum prepared and filed by respondent charged the trial judge with fraud. The memorandum further sets forth that the judge acted without jurisdiction and forced himself upon the plaintiff as trial judge and deprived her of her legal rights by his intentional, improper conduct and intentional and improper rulings, and prevented her from recovering an adequate verdict and delayed her recovery of compensation. Further, it is stated that plaintiff was victimized and deprived of her rights by the corrupt, intentional acts of the Common Pleas Court judge.
Respondent wrote and published a book entitled "Glorious Larceny" in which he repeated verbatim the allegations contained in the federal suit. The complaint in the District Court was dismissed by Judge Peck, who in doing so made mention of the unjustifiable and scurrilous charges set forth against the judge of the Common Pleas Court and the fact that if plaintiff "had complaint concerning whatever transpired in the state trial court full rights of review were available."
The respondent then appealed the dismissal of that action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. There, the judgment of the District Court was affirmed and a petition for certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court.
The Board of Commissioners found that the evidence clearly and convincingly established that respondent was guilty of irresponsible and unprofessional conduct. The specific findings were that respondent violated Canon 15 by asserting his personal beliefs in the justice and merits of the case; that he violated Canon 22 by his scurrilous conduct directed toward a member of the judiciary of the state of Ohio; and that the suit filed in the United States District Court was without any legal or factual basis, was intended to harass and injure the trial judge and constituted a violation of Canon 30. In addition, the board found that the institution of the federal court suit, and the printing and publication of his book, "Glorious Larceny" reciting his grievances and repeating the charges against the Common Pleas Court judge which he made in the federal court case after the dismissal of the federal suit, show that respondent has failed to uphold the dignity of the profession; and that, in publicizing his disrespect of a judicial office, respondent has violated Canons 29 and 32.
The Board of Commissioners recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period. The cause is before this court on respondent's objections to the findings of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Mr. Thomas C. Spraul and Mr. John S. Wirthlin, for relator.
Messrs. Young Jones and Mr. Fred E. Jones, for respondent.
Rule XIX (1) of the Rules of Practice of this court adopts the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association, which are in question herein. Rule XVIII (6) states that "each attorney and counselor at law or judge found guilty of misconduct shall be disciplined."
Respondent, admitting his misconduct but contesting the severity of the recommended discipline, asks that this court consider the small likelihood of repetition, the fact that it was his first offense, the fact that he tends to get personally involved with his cases, and previous good conduct as mitigating circumstances in determining discipline.
This court has recognized that the small likelihood of repetition of misconduct ( Stark County Bar Assn. v. Weber, 175 Ohio St. 13), the fact that it is the attorney's first offense ( Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Robinson, 175 Ohio St. 536), and previous good conduct ( Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Hamilton, 6 Ohio St.2d 264), are circumstances which are relevant and may lessen recommended discipline. However, the record and evidence in this proceeding convince us that respondent's misconduct is deserving of the recommended discipline despite previous holdings under the facts of other cases.
Respondent has wrongfully and maliciously attacked the entire judicial system. Such conduct undermines our legal system, and is inexcusable. Respondent's grossly unprofessional conduct raises serious doubt concerning his professional integrity and his ability to adjust to the Canons of Professional Ethics.
The majority of this court is of the opinion that the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline should be adopted and that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period.
Respondent's objections to the recommendations of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are overruled and respondent is suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period.
Judgment accordingly.
O'NEILL, C.J., LEACH, SCHNEIDER, HERBERT, DUNCAN and CORRIGAN, JJ., concur.
CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT participated in this case which was, however, decided after his death.
LEACH, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for MATTHIAS, J.