From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Consoldane

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 29, 1977
364 N.E.2d 279 (Ohio 1977)

Opinion

D.D. No. 77-2

Decided June 29, 1977.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Acts warranting.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

Anthony V. Consoldane, respondent, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1972. Since 1967, he has held several positions in the court system of Trumbull county, among those being probation officer, administrator of the Domestic Relations Division of the Court of Common Pleas, and hearing officer and referee in the Warren Municipal Court.

On September 15, 1976, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, filed a complaint against respondent with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (board), alleging therein that respondent had violated his Oath of Office taken on admission to the Bar of Ohio, and had violated DR 9-101(C), DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5) and (6), and DR 7-102(A)(7) and (8) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The material events involved in the complaint occurred in April and May of 1975. During April 1975, respondent represented Erza Lee Lilly, Jr., in two criminal cases then pending against him in the Court of Common Pleas of Trumbull County. Lilly pleaded guilty to both charges, and consequently was incarcerated in the Mansfield Reformatory.

It is not disputed that later that month respondent informed Lilly that if he would deliver to respondent the sum of $2,500, respondent would make payments to other persons who, in turn, would use their influence to obtain shock probation for Lilly.

Being unable to obtain the sum of $2,500, Lilly contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the office of the Ohio Attorney General and reported the proposition which respondent had made to him. An investigation was undertaken by the Special Investigation Unit of the office of the Ohio Attorney General, and also by the office of the Trumbull County prosecuting attorney.

On or about May 30, 1975, Mrs. Dorothy Lilly and a plain-clothes policewoman, Norma Higgins Konya, conferred with respondent in his office, at which time respondent reiterated the proposal he had made to Lilly. On one subsequent occasion respondent contacted Dorothy Lilly at her place of employment, again promising to arrange for her son's shock probation upon the payment to him of $2,500.

On December 13, 1976, this cause came on for hearing before a duly appointed hearing panel of the board. At that time the board heard numerous witnesses testify to respondent's estimable reputation in the community. Respondent testified that he had never intended to make payments to others in order that his client obtain shock probation, and it would appear that he employed the suggestion of bribery as a ruse, with the hope of obtaining his fee for past services.

The board, although finding that no money was ever paid to respondent in connection with his proposition, recommended that respondent, Anthony V. Consoldane, be given a public reprimand.

The matter is now before this court for consideration of the report of the board and the relator's objection to the recommendation.

Mr. Frank E. Quirk, Mr. Thomas R. Spellerberger, Mr. Albert L. Bell and Mr. John R. Welch, for relator.

Mr. Robert W. Jones, Mr. Samuel E. Petkovich and Mr. R.J. Vesmas, for respondent.


Relator, Ohio State Bar Association, disagrees with the disciplinary recommendation made by the board, and urges that the discipline in this case be no less than suspension for an indefinite period from the practice of law.

DR 9-101(C) of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

"A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official."

DR 1-102(A) reads, in part:

"A lawyer shall not:

"* * *

"(3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude.

"(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

"(5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."

DR 7-102(A) reads, in part:

"In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:

"* * *

"(7) Counsel or assist his client in conduct that the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent.

"(8) Knowingly engage in other illegal conduct or conduct contrary to a Disciplinary Rule."

It is relator's contention, and the board so held, that respondent's conduct constitutes a violation of each of the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules. Relator argues further that where an attorney at law attempts to obtain funds from his client, or from another person on behalf of his client, for the stated purpose of using the funds as a bribe to influence a public official in the performance of his official duties, such misconduct raises a serious question as to that attorney's moral fitness to continue in the practice of law.

In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Kolby (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 185, respondent attorney attempted to bribe a witness to testify that his client was not driving under the influence of alcohol, or not to testify at all. Although the bribe was apparently not consummated, this court found that Kolby's conduct violated Canons Nos. 15, 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, then in effect. The court therefore suspended Kolby from the practice of law for an indefinite period.

In Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Fatica (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 40, this court reviewed a complaint against an attorney who had been convicted of the offense of soliciting and accepting a bribe, the crime having been committed while respondent was serving in the position of city councilman. The court permanently disbarred the attorney, and, at page 43, stated the following:

"A civilized society cannot long remain without implicit confidence in those who occupy responsible positions of public trust, including both public officials, and members of the Bar who are `officers of the court.' The solicitation and acceptance of a bribe by such a person is, by its very nature, so serious as to warrant, if not compel, permanent removal from such a position of trust."

We are in agreement with the finding of the board that "[t]he seriousness of the charges [against respondent] is intensified by the fact that the respondent has been a continuous member of the court family in Trumbull county since 1967 and would leave the impression with the public that respondent worked with, knew and could influence the public officials." We disagree, however, with the board's recommendation as to the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken.

It is the considered judgment of this court that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for his violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Judgment accordingly.

O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.

P. BROWN, J., not participating.


Summaries of

Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Consoldane

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 29, 1977
364 N.E.2d 279 (Ohio 1977)
Case details for

Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Consoldane

Case Details

Full title:OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. CONSOLDANE

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jun 29, 1977

Citations

364 N.E.2d 279 (Ohio 1977)
364 N.E.2d 279

Citing Cases

Dayton Bar Assn. v. O'Brien

{¶ 11} In another matter, we indefinitely suspended an attorney for telling his client that if the client…

Disciplinary Counsel v. Martinez

In other cases, we have indefinitely suspended attorneys for suggesting that the outcome of a proceeding…