Opinion
D.D. No. 60
Decided November 4, 1964.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disciplinary action — Indefinite suspension from practice — Acts warranting — Continued failure to file federal income tax returns.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The relator, the Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint against the respondent, John T. Bilinski, charging him with misconduct as an attorney at law in that he willfully failed to file federal income tax returns in violation of Section 7203, Title 26, U.S. Code.
It appears from the record that from 1950 through 1959 respondent willfully failed to file any income tax returns, although in each of those years he had income in excess of the minimum required for the filing of a tax return; that from 1955 to 1959 respondent's tax liability exceeded the credits to his account by reason of the amount withheld from his salary; and that from 1951 through 1959 respondent's wife prepared either rough drafts of or complete returns for respondent and herself, but he never filed any returns although respondent knew that he owed the tax.
It appears further that an information was filed in the United States District Court, charging respondent with four separate violations of Section 7203, a part of the Internal Revenue Code, one each for the years 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1959. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the second count and the other three were dismissed. Respondent was adjudged guilty as charged, convicted as to the second count and assessed a fine of $4,000.
The board found that respondent's willful failure to file tax returns for the years 1950 through 1959, and particularly for the years 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1959, was a crime involving moral turpitude, and that such failure was a violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
The board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period.
The matter is now before this court for consideration of the report of the board and the objections of the respondent.
Mr. James L. Ryhal, Mr. Einar G. Carlson and Mr. Gerald E. Johnson, for relator.
Mr. Thomas J. Friel, for respondent.
The court has avoided finding that the respondent by failing to file federal income tax returns has committed or has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. See Dayton Bar Association v. Prear (1964), 175 Ohio St. 543.
In the instant case, the respondent, because of his failure to file federal income tax returns for a number of years and his conviction under Section 7203, Title 26, U.S. Code, was charged also with conduct violating Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, which is encompassed within the meaning of misconduct as defined by subdivision (5) (a) of Rule XVIII (formerly XXVII) of this court. Canons 29 and 32 are broad in their terms. Canon 29 admonishes that an attorney should at all times strive to uphold the honor of the profession. And, although the express admonition of Canon 32 that an attorney must "observe and advise his client to observe the statute law" is not applicable until the statute has been construed and interpreted by competent adjudication, the validity of the filing requirements of the Internal Revenue Code is not in doubt. The evidence amply supports the charges that respondent's conduct violated Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
The objections to the recommendation of the board are overruled, and the recommendation of the board is confirmed on authority of Dayton Bar Association v. Prear, supra.
Report confirmed and judgment accordingly.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.