From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Disciplinary Counsel v. Boughton

Supreme Court of Ohio
Apr 24, 1991
59 Ohio St. 3d 102 (Ohio 1991)

Opinion

No. 90-1706

Submitted October 17, 1990 —

Decided April 24, 1991.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation — Failure to assist in investigation.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 89-25.

On June 19, 1989, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint against respondent, Robert Boughton, charging him with two counts of misconduct. Count I charged that respondent's conduct as president of a nonexistent insurance company, involving a deed given as security for a loan, violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation). Count II charged that respondent's failure to respond to relator's attempts to contact him violated Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a) (failure to assist in an investigation). Respondent answered the complaint on July 11, 1989, and denied the material allegations of the complaint.

Subsequently, the parties submitted agreed stipulations of fact that respondent was president, secretary, and legal counsel to American International Life and Casualty Company, Ltd., incorporated in the Turks and Caicos Islands, British West Indies; that the company was unlicensed and unregistered in this or any other state in violation of R.C. 1703.03; that respondent's participation in the company's affairs constituted misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4); and that respondent's failure to respond to relator's inquiries violated Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a). The parties also agreed on a recommendation for public reprimand, to waive a hearing, and to submit the case to the hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on the stipulations. Relator also moved to strike the parts of its complaint pertaining to the loan and deed.

The panel granted the motion to strike, permitted the waiver, and allowed the stipulations to serve in place of testimony and other evidence.

Based upon the foregoing, the panel found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a) and recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded. The board adopted the panel's findings and its recommendation and also recommended that costs be taxed to respondent.

J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Harald F. Craig III, for relator.

Stanley Morganstern, for respondent.


We find that respondent committed the misconduct found by the board and concur with 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.


Summaries of

Disciplinary Counsel v. Boughton

Supreme Court of Ohio
Apr 24, 1991
59 Ohio St. 3d 102 (Ohio 1991)
Case details for

Disciplinary Counsel v. Boughton

Case Details

Full title:OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BOUGHTON

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Apr 24, 1991

Citations

59 Ohio St. 3d 102 (Ohio 1991)
570 N.E.2d 1100

Citing Cases

Thottam v. Thottam

IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, IN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF APPELLANT'S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION, BY REFUSING TO…

Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Speros

By contrast, respondent attested by forgery to a prevarication in the representation of his client and…