Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Pandilidis, 78-10
| Decision Date | 28 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-10,78-10 |
| Parties | , 11 O.O.3d 158 CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. PANDILIDIS. D. D. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On September 26, 1977, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint and certificate with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, pursuant to Gov.R. V, wherein relator charged respondent, Peter Pandilidis, with violations of, Inter alia, Canon 1 and DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Relator's complaint recited that, on August 3, 1973, an indictment was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, which charged that respondent had received a gross income for the year of 1968 amounting to $21,667.45; that by reason of said income respondent was required by law to file an income tax return; that well knowing of all the foregoing facts, respondent did willfully and knowingly fail to file a timely income tax return in violation of Section 7203, Title 26, United States Code. Count two of the indictment similarly stated that, during the year 1969, respondent earned $28,362.18 in income, and did willfully and knowingly fail to file a timely tax return pertaining to these earnings. On November 6, 1973, respondent was convicted by jury verdict of both counts specified in the indictment and, on April 29, 1974, was sentenced in accordance with federal law.
The matter came before this court's Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline for hearing on March 17, 1978. The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that prior to his conviction, respondent was involved in marital problems, culminating in the filing for divorce and separation from his spouse in 1970. Because of the marital difficulties, respondent's wife apparently refused to cooperate in the filing of their income tax forms, leading respondent to apply to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for an extension of time to file the 1968 and the 1969 returns. Although these extensions were granted, respondent failed to file the returns on the assumption that his wife's refusal to sign them justified a further delay. On February 15, 1971, respondent finally filed both returns and, by cover letter included with the returns, requested that the IRS have a representative contact him so he might "explain the reason for late filing and nonpayment" and so that "some type of installment payments" could be set up. On June 11, 1971, a criminal investigation of respondent's actions was commenced by the IRS, which, on August 3, 1973, culminated in the indictment leading to his conviction. *
Upon review of the evidence submitted by the parties, the board of commissioners found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6).
This matter is now before us for consideration of the report of the board and objections of respondent.
Robert M. Bratton, William S. Wyler and Ann Tarbutton, Cincinnati, for relator.
Tobias & Kraus, Paul H. Tobias and Lynne Gellenbeck, Cincinnati, for respondent.
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 77, 278 N.E.2d 670, established the rule that when a lawyer is convicted of the willful failure to file a federal income tax return, and such a determination becomes final, the lawyer will be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. This court stated, at page 80, 278 N.E.2d at page 672:
"We are of the opinion that the time has come to establish and publicly announce a pattern of consistency in the imposition of discipline in (these) cases * * * ."
In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dixon (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 76, 77, 320 N.E.2d 293, 294, it is noted that "efforts to distinguish cases of this nature (from Stein ) on other than clear-cut grounds serve only to prolong the uncertainty" of a respondent's plight.
It is our conclusion that the facts herein are not distinguishable from those in Stein and subsequent cases. See Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dixon, supra; Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Tzagournis (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 367, 348 N.E.2d 690. In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Beall (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 168, 375 N.E.2d 423, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Wolfe, s. 82-4
...54 Ohio St.2d 168, 375 N.E.2d 423; Dayton Bar Assn. v. Westbrock (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 75, 381 N.E.2d 1320; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Pandilidis (1979), 57 Ohio St. 47, 385 N.E.2d 1317; Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Stimmel (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 316, 401 N.E.2d 926. However, at the time the above c......
-
Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Stimmel, 79-20
...such determination becomes final, that attorney will be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Pandilidis (1979), 57 Ohio St.2d 47, 385 N.E.2d 1317; Dayton Bar Assn. v. Westbrock (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 75, 381 N.E.2d 1320; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Beall (1978......
- State ex rel. Rose v. Garfield Heights Municipal Court, 78-694
-
Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Dunbar, 80-6
...from the practice of law. Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Stimmel (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 316, 401 N.E.2d 926; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Pandilidis (1979), 57 Ohio St.2d 47, 385 N.E.2d 1317; Dayton Bar Assn. v. Westbrock (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 75, 381 N.E.2d 1320; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Beall (1978), 5......