Opinion
No. 77-1
Decided June 29, 1977.
Attorneys at law — Indefinite suspension from practice of law — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Roger R. Chacksfield, respondent, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in August of 1949. Respondent is engaged in the private practice of law and has served as a volunteer instructor in the Norwood Regional Police Academy.
The relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint against respondent with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (board), averring that respondent had violated Canons 1, 7 and 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The complaint involves two separate but related events that occurred on June 16, 1975, and September 17, 1975. First, on June 16, 1975, respondent, after appearing before Judge Paul J. George in a domestic relations matter, went to Mama Capri's Pizza about 4:30 p.m. and began to drink martinis. Around 10:30 p.m., the co-owner, Jim Cohen, decided to cut off respondent's drinks and offered to take him home.
Shortly thereafter, James Kelly, bailiff for Judge George, entered Mama Capri's Pizza; whereupon, respondent proceeded to threaten Kelly with a weapon, complaining of the treatment he was receiving in Judge George's court. After receiving his pizza, Kelly left the establishment. Respondent then went to a door overlooking the parking lot and allegedly fired one shot in the direction of one Gary Fike. Subsequently, respondent pleaded guilty to the charge of aggravated menacing, on September 19, 1975.
Secondly, on September 17, 1975, respondent wrote letters to Judge George and his bailiff, Kelly. The letter to Judge George recited how respondent had helped Judge George in his past political campaigns and that Judge George should instruct his bailiff to dismiss the charges pending against respondent. The letter to Kelly contained a copy of respondent's letter to Judge George and another letter implying that there were certain influential persons who would not want respondent "destroyed."
After considering the answer of the respondent, the stipulations of the parties and the evidence, the board, finding both counts of the complaint to be true, determined that respondent had violated Canons 1, 7 and 9. The board, therefore, recommended respondent's indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
Mr. John J. Getgey, Jr., Mr. Robert M. Bratton, Jr., Mr. Robert L. Davis and Mr. Clement J. DeMichelis, for relator.
Mr. Marvin Kleinman and Mr. Nelson Lancione, for respondent.
Upon an examination of the record of this action, we find that respondent's actions were in violation of the following canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility as charged:
Canon 1. "A Lawyer Should Assist in Maintaining the Integrity and Competence of the Legal Profession."
Canon 7. "A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Zealously Within the Bounds of the Law."
Canon 9. "A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance of Professional Impropriety."
Therefore, we accept the board's recommendation, and the respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.