Summary
In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wang (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 67, 570 N.E.2d 274, we publicly reprimanded an attorney who falsely certified that an employee of his law firm earned a higher salary so that he and the employee could obtain a real estate loan. And, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Boughton (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 102, 570 N.E.2d 1100, we publicly reprimanded an attorney whose misrepresentation consisted of participating in the affairs of an insurance company not licensed and registered under the laws of Ohio or of any other state.
Summary of this case from Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. SperosOpinion
No. 90-2534
Submitted February 13, 1991 —
Decided April 24, 1991.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Knowingly certifying false information on employee's employment verification form used in securing a bank loan.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 90-26.
Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") against respondent, Charleston C.K. Wang, charging him with violating DR 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on one's fitness to practice law). Relator alleged that respondent was a partner in the law firm of Groeber Wang. The firm employed Harold Estill Parker, a law student, in the capacity of office manager, law clerk, and legal researcher. As compensation for his services, Parker received not more than $1,155.00 in 1983 and not more than $1,817.50 in 1984. Respondent, on April 18, 1984, executed a request for verification of employment for Parker in which respondent certified that Parker's base pay was $22,000 in 1983 and $7,300 for the year to date in 1984. Respondent certified Parker's earnings in order to secure a loan from the First National Bank of Cincinnati (now Star Bank, N.A., Cincinnati). The proceeds of the loan were used by respondent and Parker to purchase real estate in Hamilton County, Ohio.
Respondent answered, admitting the operative allegations contained in the complaint, and admitting the authenticity of the exhibits attached thereto. Respondent, however, denied having violated any of the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules.
A hearing was held before a panel of the board. At the hearing, relator and respondent jointly stipulated that the facts set forth in the complaint were admitted. Respondent also presented testimony indicating that no financial harm had come to any of the other principals involved in the loan transaction.
At the conclusion of the hearing, respondent recommended that the action be dismissed, or, if sanctions were found to be appropriate, that respondent receive no more than a public reprimand. Relator also recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand.
Based upon respondent's admissions, the panel concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) when he knowingly certified false information on Parker's employment verification form. Noting that respondent had fully cooperated throughout the investigation, that no financial harm had come to any of the other principals involved in the loan transaction, and that respondent had been deeply involved in charitable and Chinese-American activities in the Cincinnati area since 1982, the panel unanimously recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand.
The board adopted the panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation. The board further recommended that costs be taxed to respondent.
Hollis A. Moore III and Richard J. Ruebel, for relator.
John H. Burlew, for respondent.
We concur in the board's findings of misconduct and in its recommendation. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.