Opinion
D.D. No. 79-5
Decided July 11, 1979.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (board), wherein relator charged respondent, Fred L. Newsom, Jr., with violations of DR 1-102(A)(1), (3), (4) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The cause came on for hearing October 6, 1978, before the duly appointed hearing panel of the board on the complaint and the evidence.
Relator's complaint alleged that respondent had been convicted, in federal court, of violating Section 1131, Title 29, U.S. Code, and had further violated DR 1-102(A)(1), (3), (4) and (6) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation, and that such conduct constituted a crime involving moral turpitude. The complaint revealed that respondent, while employed as legal counsel for Local No. 423, Laborers' International Union of North America, located in Columbus, did willfully and knowingly combine, conspire, confederate and agree with officers of Local No. 423 to prepare a report containing a financial statement of the insurance fund for the year 1977, which did not fully and fairly represent the financial statements of the insurance fund as required by Section 1023(b)(1), Title 29, U.S. Code.
The overt acts consisted of the preparation of false insurance claim forms in order to perpetrate a fraudulent scheme on the insurance fund to cause the fund to pay insurance claims for an individual not eligible for benefits, the person preparing and receiving the benefits being the respondent, Fred L. Newsom, Jr.
The findings of fact of the board are not challenged by respondent who did not file any formal answer denying the allegations of the complaint.
The evidence indicates the salient facts set forth in the complaint are true. Specifically, respondent did, on two occasions, claim an alleged disability which prevented him from performing his work and thereby entitled him to insurance proceeds. The first fraudulent claim alleging disability was for the period July 6, 1976, to September 21, 1976. The second fraudulent claim covered the period between December 2, 1976, to March 3, 1977.
Respondent, by and through his counsel, readily admitted the charges to be true and offered in mitigation that the union employer was controlled by a forceful officer who, in essence, ordered respondent, as legal counsel, to take part in the schemes. Further, it is conceded that, in 25 years of practice in Columbus, Newsom has had no prior ethical problems.
Upon a review of the evidence, stipulations and admissions, the board concluded that respondent's activities breached DR 1-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as charged, and recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Mr. R. Douglas Wrightsel, Mr. Donald H. Rathbun and Mr. Richard Letts, for relator.
Messrs. Tyack, Scott Wiseman and Mr. Paul A Scott, for respondent.
"One of the fundamental tenets of the professional responsibility of a lawyer is that he should maintain a degree of personal and professional integrity that meets the highest standard. The integrity of the profession can be maintained only if the conduct of the individual attorney is above reproach. He should refrain from any illegal conduct. Anything short of this lessens public confidence in the legal profession — because obedience to the law exemplifies respect for the law." Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 77, 81.
DR 1-102(A) warns, inter alia, that a lawyer shall not:
"(1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule.
"* * *
"(3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude.
"(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
"* * *
"(6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
Counsel for respondent maintains that the circumstances herein do not reflect the typical attorney-client relationship and that there was control and compulsion exerted over respondent.
We are not persuaded by these contentions inasmuch as respondent's conduct constituted a crime involving moral turpitude and the signing of the fraudulent insurance claims were intentional affirmative acts.
Upon a review of the record in this cause, we find ample facts to justify the board's determination that respondent has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. We concur in the recommendation of the board, and respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.