Opinion
No. 85-22
Decided October 30, 1985.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Conviction of theft.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, relator, commenced the instant disciplinary proceeding charging respondent, Robert D. Head, with violations of DR 1-102(A)(1), (3), (4) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A hearing was held before a three-member panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline ("board") on May 3, 1985. Respondent did not file an answer to the charges, but appeared before the panel without counsel.
The facts surrounding the charges against respondent are as follows. Respondent was employed as an assistant county prosecutor for Montgomery County from October 1978 until March 1984. In 1980, respondent assisted in the successful prosecution of two persons for the murders of Franklin and Mary Jean Tice. During the trial, two rings belonging to the deceased couple, which had been stolen from them by the murderers, were admitted into evidence. These rings were placed in the custody of the clerk of courts pending an appeal by the murderers from their convictions.
Respondent admitted that in 1980, he took those rings to have them appraised for purchase by an individual after the rings were no longer needed in the criminal case. Respondent further admitted that he lost the rings and later paid the estate of Mary Jean Tice $7,650, the appraised value of the rings.
In January 1984, respondent was indicted by the Grand Jury of Montgomery County and charged with a felony theft offense in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) or (2), a felony of the fourth degree. Respondent was also charged with theft in office in violation of R.C. 2921.41(A)(1), a felony of the third degree. Respondent pleaded no contest to, and was found guilty of, "the lesser included offense of Theft Over $300.00."
On September 12, 1984, the Supreme Court of Ohio suspended respondent from the practice of law for an indefinite period pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V (8)(a)(iii).
Gov. Bar R. V (8) provides that the Supreme Court may enter an order for the immediate and indefinite suspension from practice of any attorney who is convicted of a criminal offense other than a petty offense as defined by the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The board found that respondent's theft of these rings constituted illegal conduct involving moral turpitude in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3). The board also found that respondent's action was conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation prohibited by DR 1-102(A)(4). Finally, the board found that respondent's conduct adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6). The board recommended that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
DR 1-102(A)(3) provides that:
"(A) lawyer shall not:
"* * *
"(3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude."
DR 1-102(A)(4) states that:
"(A) A lawyer shall not:
"* * *
"(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation."
DR 1-102(A)(6) reads as follows:
"(A) A lawyer shall not:
"* * *
"(6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
Angelo J. Gagliardo, disciplinary counsel, and Carl J. Corletzi, for relator.
Robert D. Head, pro se.
Respondent was found guilty of a felony theft offense. Inasmuch as respondent has filed no objection to the recommendation of the board, we agree that the appropriate sanction for such egregious conduct is an indefinite suspension.
Accordingly, we adopt the findings and recommendations of the board and hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for an indefinite period.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.