From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Reisenfeld

Supreme Court of Ohio
Nov 18, 1998
1998 Ohio 307 (Ohio 1998)

Summary

In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Reisenfeld (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 30, 701 N.E.2d 973, we publicly reprimanded one attorney and suspended another for six months, with the entire suspension stayed, because they had completed affidavits for several different clients, one of which the more severely sanctioned attorney completed inaccurately, by using and then notarizing stale signatures.

Summary of this case from Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaffer

Opinion

       Submitted July 8, 1998.

       Frederick O. Kiel, Gates T. Richards and Edwin W. Patterson III, General Counsel, Cincinnati, for relator.


       John H. Burlew, Cincinnati, for respondents.

       PER CURIAM

       We adopt the findings and conclusion of the board. In determining a sanction to be imposed, we consider the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the injury caused, and the existence of mitigating circumstances. Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bunce (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 112, 115, 689 N.E.2d 566, 568, and cases cited therein.

       We have previously said that "lawyers must not take a cavalier attitude toward their notary responsibilities." Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Papcke (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 91, 93, 689 N.E.2d 549, 551. Respondents did notarize signatures that were inscribed in their presence, Sylvan did produce accurate renditions of the statements made by the clients over these signatures, and although Bradley failed to accurately reproduce Erdman's statements, Erdman did not suffer any damage. Nonetheless, respondents' actions violated the duties imposed upon notaries by R.C. Chapter 147.

       In Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240, and in later opinions, we said that "[w]hen an attorney engages in a course of conduct resulting in a finding that the attorney has violated DR 1-102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time." See Disciplinary Counsel v. Simecek (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 320, 699 N.E.2d 933. Respondents, however, took these improper [84 Ohio St.3d 32] actions in only a few isolated cases that they believed presented emergency situations, and their actions caused no damage to any client. Respondents' actions were but a few isolated incidents in otherwise unblemished legal careers, not a course of conduct. Additionally, respondents cooperated with relator in its investigation.

       We therefore adopt the recommendation of the board with respect to respondent Sylvan Reisenfeld. Sylvan Reisenfeld is hereby publicly reprimanded. But in light of the fact that Bradley Reisenfeld inaccurately added a statement--one that Erdman allegedly never made--to Erdman's affidavit, Bradley's conduct warrants a harsher sanction. Bradley Reisenfeld is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six months, with the entire six months suspended. Costs are taxed to respondents.

       Judgment accordingly.

       MOYER, C.J., and RESNICK, FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr., PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

DOUGLAS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

       DOUGLAS, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

       I concur with the majority with regard to the sanction imposed on respondent Sylvan P. Reisenfeld. I dissent as to the sanction imposed on Bradley A. Reisenfeld. I would impose a public reprimand.


Summaries of

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Reisenfeld

Supreme Court of Ohio
Nov 18, 1998
1998 Ohio 307 (Ohio 1998)

In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Reisenfeld (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 30, 701 N.E.2d 973, we publicly reprimanded one attorney and suspended another for six months, with the entire suspension stayed, because they had completed affidavits for several different clients, one of which the more severely sanctioned attorney completed inaccurately, by using and then notarizing stale signatures.

Summary of this case from Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaffer
Case details for

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Reisenfeld

Case Details

Full title:CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. REISENFELD (Two cases.)

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Nov 18, 1998

Citations

1998 Ohio 307 (Ohio 1998)
1998 Ohio 307
84 Ohio St. 3d 30

Citing Cases

People v. Peters

Id. at p. 5, citing, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (1976); Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, 26 U.S.C. § 6065, 7026. See also…

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Papcke

"`[L]awyers must not take a cavalier attitude toward their notary responsibilities.'" Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.…