Opinion
D.D. No. 80-1
Decided June 25, 1980.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
On November 12, 1976, Jerry F. Chvosta, respondent herein, was found guilty of two counts of felonious assault and was sentenced to two to fifteen years imprisonment on each count in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed his conviction in April 1978. On August 31, 1978, this court overruled respondent's motion for leave to appeal and dismissed his appeal as of right from the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Respondent was admitted to the Ohio Bar in 1949. By entry dated November 14, 1977, this court, pursuant to the provisions of Gov. R.V (8)(a)(iii) adopted the finding and entry by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline that the crime respondent was convicted of involved moral turpitude, and ordered that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period.
On October 9, 1979, after respondent exhausted all appeals from his conviction, a hearing was held pursuant to Gov. R.V (8)(c). On January 28, 1980, the board found that respondent had exhausted his right to appeal his conviction, that his crime involved moral turpitude in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3), and that respondent had engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6). As a consequence the board recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
The matter is now before this court for consideration of the report of the board and respondent's objections to its recommendations.
Mr. C. Anthony Stavole, Mr. Julian C. Renswick and Mr. Arthur F. Zalud, for relator.
Mr. Jerry F. Chvosta, pro se.
Respondent's sole contention before this court is that he should not be suspended for an indefinite period because he was denied due process of law in both the trial and appeal of his criminal case. Respondent does not contend that he was not convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Gov. R.V (8)(b) states:
"A certified copy of a judgment entry of conviction of an offense shall be conclusive evidence of the commission of that offense in any disciplinary proceedings instituted against an attorney based upon the conviction."
This rule makes it clear that a disciplinary proceeding is not an appropriate forum in which to collaterally attack a criminal conviction. Respondent has exhausted all appeals from his conviction.
Upon a careful review of the evidence and stipulation, the court concludes that respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and DR 1-102(A)(6). Therefore, respondent, Jerry F. Chvosta, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, O'NEILL, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.
O'NEILL, J., of the Seventh Appellate District, sitting for P. BROWN, J.