Summary
imposing a public reprimand on an attorney who made false statements to a court and expressed a discourteous demeanor toward opposing counsel
Summary of this case from Disciplinary Counsel v. PullinsOpinion
D.D. No. 81-28
Decided February 19, 1982.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The Cincinnati Bar Association, relator herein, filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, pursuant to Gov. R.V, charging David Edward Gebhart, respondent, in Count I with conduct in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5); DR 7-102(A)(1); and DR 7-106(C)(6). In Count II respondent was charged with the violation of DR 7-102(A)(5), knowingly making a false statement of law or fact in the representation of a client; DR 7-106(C)(6), engaging in discourteous conduct which is degrading to a tribunal; DR 7-102(A)(1) and (2), asserting a position or taking other action merely to harass another and knowingly advancing a claim or defense that is unwarranted; and DR 1-102(A)(6), engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law.
In the main, the charges within Count II involve conduct of the respondent toward two Cincinnati attorneys who opposed respondent in certain litigation in which respondent was made a party defendant, alleging personal responsibility of respondent on a corporate debt. Evidence was presented that whenever respondent's personal liability was discussed, he made statements to the effect that if counsel for the employee proceeded to involve him he would see that they were disbarred; that he would haunt them from his grave; and that he did request to engage in fisticuffs at some time later during the course of the pending lawsuit. The respondent was, in fact, joined as a party in the lawsuit, wherein respondent filed a counterclaim seeking the disbarment of attorneys Schilling and Crout and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000 from each attorney as well as other monetary claims for damages. Also, on a hearing on a motion before the court in such case, respondent indicated that he had gone to the Cincinnati Bar Association and they had informed him that he had a good case against the other attorneys. This statement was refuted by counsel for the Cincinnati Bar Association. Ultimately the matter was settled by respondent paying the sum of $500 and the entire action was dismissed.
As to Count III, the respondent was charged with the violation of DR 1-102(A)(6); DR 6-101(A)(3); and DR 7-101(A)(2) and (3).
The matter came on for a private hearing in Cincinnati on October 9 and 10, and November 7, 1980, with the relator and respondent being represented by counsel. After full hearing being afforded, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline dismissed Counts I and III, and found respondent guilty of violating DR 7-102(A)(1) and (2) as to Count II, and recommended that respondent be given a public reprimand. Respondent filed objections to the findings of fact and the recommendation of the board.
Ms. Ann Tarbutton, Mr. James J. Condit, Mr. Edward A. Hogan and Mr. Theodore W. Weinkam, for relator.
Mr. Milo Beran, for respondent.
The respondent is charged with, and the evidence shows, seeking the disbarment of opposing counsel in litigation by way of pleadings, and making statements to the court that the Cincinnati Bar Association had advised him that the allegations were valid. There are appropriate methods and means by which claims of unprofessional conduct may be heard and proper sanctions, including disbarment, may be meted out. Such, of course, is the instant proceeding. It is inappropriate to make such allegations within a pleading in pending civil proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas.
Further, making false representations or statements of fact to a court, as in the proceeding in which respondent was involved, is a serious infraction of our Rules of Professional Conduct, and reflect adversely on the attorney's fitness to practice law. Also reflecting adversely upon an attorney's fitness to practice law is the expressed attitude and demeanor which he evidences to other counsel. As stated in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Riebel (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 290, and equally applicable here:
"It is within the real meaning and intent of our Code of Professional Responsibility that lawyers should always be cognizant of the necessity for good manners, courtesy and discourse, both to client and other practitioners, as being part of our professional ethics."
After a review of the record, we concur in the recommendation of the board, and publicly reprimand respondent, David Edward Gebhart, for such acts.
Judgment accordingly.
W. BROWN, ACTING C.J., REILLY, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and KRUPANSKY, JJ., concur.
REILLY, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for CELEBREZZE, C.J.