Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Stein, 71-4

• Decision Date: 09 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 71-4,71-4
• Citation: 278 N.E.2d 670,29 Ohio St.2d 77,58 O.O.2d 151
• Parties: , 58 O.O.2d 151 CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. STEIN. D. D.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 77

29 Ohio St.2d 77

278 N.E.2d 670, 58 O.O.2d 151

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. STEIN.

D. D. No. 71-4.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Feb. 9, 1972.

William H. Stein, the respondent herein, is 46 years old and was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1951 by examination. He has practiced continuously since that time in Cleveland, specializing in the field of municipal law. He has in the past represented several municipalities in Cuyahoga County.

The relator, the Cleveland Bar Association, instituted this proceeding before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, charging respondent with violations of Canons of Professional Ethics, Nos. 29 and 32.

On April 2, 1969, an information was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Disvision, charging in four counts that respondent wilfully failed to file federal income tax returns for 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966, in violation of Section 7203, Title 26, U.C.Code. On that same day the respondent entered a plea of guilty to the charge of failing to file the 1965 return and the U.S. Attorney moved for dismissal of the other three charges, which was granted by the court.

The counts of the information alleged that, in 1963, respondent had a gross income of $30,970; in 1964, a gross income of $27,190; in 1965, a gross income of $38,774.06; and in 1966, a gross income of $29,086.79.

Respondent's plea of guilty was accepted. He appeared for sentencing on May 28, 1969, at which time he was fined $1,000 and placed on probation for one year.

The findings of act of the Board of Commissioners point out that the only information which the Cleveland Bar Association had regarding respondent's plea of guilty to his charge is a letter, dated April 3, 1969, written by respondent in which he advised the executive secretary that he had entered such a plea. The letter stated that, while there was an admitted tax liability of $2,375.94 in 1963, $2,260.01 in 1964, $4,011.54 in 1965 and $1,869.23 in 1966, a portion of the tax liability for each year had been covered by withholding taxes. This letter stated further that respondent had not been motivated in any way by an intent to evade income tax responsibility or to violate the law, but had resulted from a personal breakdown relating to his personal affairs and professional responsibilities during the years involved. That letter concluded with the following paragraph:

'As a lawyer I fully realize my solemn oath and responsibility to uphold and encourage respect for the laws of our country and the Canons of my profession, and I therefore submit to the Bar Association for review my conduct as set forth in this letter.'

Respondent testified under oath before the hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. He stated that, commencing in 1961, he was involved in extreme marital difficulties, resulting in a separation from his wife and son in 1964 and ultimately a divorce in 1968; that, commencing in 1963, his financial circumstances were deplorable and he was required to borrow substantial sums of money to make expenses; that he did not know that he could file a return without full payment of his tax obligation and that in March 1964, when his 1963 income tax, amounting to $2,900, was due, he was unable to pay it; that he did not file a return and he did not know that it was a crime to fail to file this return; that in subsequent years at tax payment time he did not have the money to pay the current tax, nor for the prior years, and the matter simply compounded itself until early in 1969, when the Internal Revenue Service reminded him of his deficiency. The filing of the information and his plea of guilty followed.

Counsel for relator recommended to the panel that if discipline was found to be appropriate, a public reprimand be imposed.

The board findings were as follows:

'1. Under the evidence and the facts developed and in consonance with the cases cited on page two, the conviction of the respondent for a wilful failure to file his federal income tax return for the calendar year 1965, which was a violation of Section 7203, Title 26, U. S. Code, was not a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.

'2. Based upon the admitted facts in this cause, the findings made in similar cases which have come before this board and the case law announced by the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, the board finds that the conviction of the respondent in the incident case constituted a violation of Canons 29 and 32.'

The board recommended that respondent be administered a public reprimand pursuant to Section (6)(c) of Rule XVIII of the Rules of Practice of this court.

Lewis Einbund, Charles B. Donahue, II,...