Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Leroux, s. 90-92
| Decision Date | 20 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 90-92,s. 90-92 |
| Citation | 242 N.E.2d 347,16 Ohio St.2d 10 |
| Parties | , 45 O.O.2d 259 CINCINNATI BAR ASSN. v. LEROUX. CINCINNATI BAR ASSN. v. WEBER. DAYTON BAR ASSN. v. BOSTICK. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Thomas A. Luken, Cincinnati, for respondents Leroux and Weber.
Peter Outcalt and James L. Elder, Lawrence A. Kane, Jr., and Arnold Morelli, Cincinnati, for relator Cincinnati Bar Ass'n.
Robert J. Eilerman and Harry P. Jeffrey, Dayton, for relator Dayton Bar Ass'n.
Lloyd H. O'Hara and James T. Lynn, Jr., Dayton, for respondent Bostick.
In each of these three cases the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered whether the failure to file income tax returns were crimes involving moral turpitude, and in each case the board decided that they were not.
The failure to file income tax returns is a misdemeanor, Section 7203, Title 26, U.S. Code. While such classification does not control the determination of whether moral turpitude is involved, it does indicate that Congress did not consider the offense serious enough to be made a felony.
More important is the evidence that there was no attempt on the part of respondents to evade income taxes. Respondents Leroux and Weber, for example, filed accurate partnership returns during at least one of the years for which they failed to file personal returns, which would be inconsistent with a plan to defraud the government. All of the respondents co-operated fully with the Internal Revenue agents. There was no indication that the records maintained were either inadequate or deceptive. There was considerable evidence that the reputation and competence of respondents ranged from good to very good.
Whether a charge based upon a willfull omission to file income tax returns (for which the explanations offered were so various as to include physical or emotional illness family problems and economic problems) involves moral turpitude, must necessarily turn on the particular circumstances of each case. See Dayton Bar Assn. v. Prear, 175 Ohio St. 543, 196 N.E.2d 773. Certainly the inclusion of evidence negating an intention to defraud is such a circumstance.
The lack of evidence from which such an intent might be inferred must be considered to distinguish such cases from those in which such evidence is affirmatively shown. Openness and remorse alone will not excuse an offense which is clearly reprehensible, but may be considered, with other mitigating circumstances, in evaluting a difficult borderline case. We agree with the board's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Walman
...of Cochrane, 549 P.2d 328, 329 (Nev.1976); In re Ford's Case, 102 N.H. 24, 149 A.2d 863, 864 (1959); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Leroux, 16 Ohio St.2d 10, 242 N.E.2d 347, 348 (1968); In re Walker, 240 Or. 65, 399 P.2d 1015, 1016 (1965); In re Weisensee, 224 N.W.2d 830, 831 (S.D.1975); In re McS......
-
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Livshee, 3939
...488, 251 N.Y.S.2d 139 (1964)) have been imposed. Courts in some states have imposed a public reprimand, Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Leroux, 16 Ohio St.2d 10, 242 N.E.2d 347 (1968); a two-month suspension, In re Ford's Case, 102 N.H. 24, 149 A.2d 863 (1959); an indefinite suspension, In re Ray, ......
-
Nicholson, Matter of
...(1957 Ky.) (no fraudulent intent); Kentucky State Bar Assn. v. McAfee, 301 S.W.2d 899 (1957 Ky.); Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Leroux, 16 Ohio St.2d 10, 45 Ohio Op.2d 259, 242 N.E.2d 347 (1968) (no intent to evade); Re Corcoran, 215 Or. 660, 337 P.2d 307 (1959) (absence evil/fraudulent intent, m......
-
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Michaels
...(gross sexual imposition and sexual imposition in violation of DR 1-102, resulting in disbarment); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Leroux (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 10, 45 O.O.2d 259, 242 N.E.2d 347 (failure to file federal income tax returns, resulting in public reprimand); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Shot......