Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 17 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 89,89 |
| Citation | 15 Ohio St.2d 220,239 N.E.2d 47 |
| Parties | , 44 O.O.2d 194 CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. BOWMAN. D. D. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Powell McHenry and Walter Bortz, Cincinnati, for relator.
Richard H. Pennington and Thomas A. Zins, Cincinnati, for respondent.
In his objections, brief and oral argument before this court, respondent has argued steadfastly that the record does not show acts meriting the punishment he thinks the board has recommended for him. The aims of lawyer discipline are, first and foremost, protection of the public, and secondarily, but not unimportantly as this case shows, protection of the legal profession. The fact that respondent may be penalized by this court's administration of discipline in his case is incidental to the protection of the legal profession and the public.
This court may take judicial notice of the fact that a defendant in a federal tax criminal case where the amount of tax or penalty due is still disputed may plead nolo contendere so that his conviction will not be res judicata of his tax liability. Much has been written and argued on both sides of the question whether a plea of nolo contendere admits the well-pleaded facts in the indictment, but that is beside the point. Respondent was convicted, upon his plea of nolo contendere but convicted nonetheless, of tax evasion.
Conviction of the offense of wilfully and knowingly attempting to evade income tax due by causing to be filed a false and fraudulent income tax return is conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Respondent's contention that this court may consider only the words of Section 7201, Title 26, U.S.Code: '* * * wilfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax * * *,' and not the recital of the conviction that he evaded tax by filing three false and fraudulent returns, is without merit. The conviction is relevant to the issue involved here, and a certified copy of the conviction is properly in evidence. The filing of a false and fraudulent tax return by an attorney, an officer of this court, is an act involving moral turpitude.
The finding of the board that relator did present evidence showing violation of Canons 29 and 32 is supported by the record. There is a large area of overlap between the Canons of Professional Ethics and the conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Here, the record discloses that respondent's misconduct consisted entirely of being convicted of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Vaporis
...42 Ohio St.2d 285, 328 N.E.2d 405; Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Hart (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 97, 238 N.E.2d 560; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Bowman (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 220, 239 N.E.2d 47; Dayton Bar Assn. v. Prear (1964), 175 Ohio St. 543, 196 N.E.2d 773. Although respondent attempts to distinguish ......
-
Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Carter, 74-7
...misconduct when he commits or is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Gov.R. V(5)(a), supra. In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Bowman (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 220, 239 N.E.2d 47, this court specifically held, at page 222, 239 N.E.2d at page 48, 'Conviction of the offense of wilfully and kn......
- Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Lichota, 85
-
Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Moore, 75-8
...from the practice of law. Cf. Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lichota (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 217, 239 N.E.2d 45; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Bowman (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 220, 239 N.E.2d 47. By willfully failing to file federal income tax returns in the case at bar, respondent violated Canon 29 and Canon 32 ......