Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Dixon

• Decision Date: 11 December 1974
• Citation: 320 N.E.2d 293,40 Ohio St.2d 76
• Parties: , 69 O.O.2d 401 COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. DIXON.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 76

40 Ohio St.2d 76

320 N.E.2d 293, 69 O.O.2d 401

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. DIXON.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 11, 1974.

M. Andrew Ross and S. Noel Melvin, Columbus, for relator.

Richard E. Wright, Columbus, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The record herein establishes that respondent knowingly and willfully failed to file federal income tax returns for 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969. No charge was filed against him for 1965 because of a federal statute of limitations.

Respondent's gross income and tax liabilities for the years in question are: 1966-$48,649.81, $4,911.93; 1967-$25,365.56, $1,539.78; 1968-$30,206.96, $1,618.86; 1969-$23,212.55,.$1,061.59.

Respondent states that, at the time of his defaults, he did not realize that a willful and knowing failure to file a federal income tax return was a crime. From this it would follow that he was also unaware that the filing of a return without remitting the tax due gives rise to civil rather than criminal liability. He expresses the feeling that if the financial demands of his family and those of his government could not be simultaneously satisfied, his family came first and his tax deficiencies could be rectified at a later time.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline was impressed with respondent's sincere devotion to his family and with the forthright manner in which he accepted full responsibility for the course of action he chose to pursue. The board was also compassionately aware of the motivating circumstances which caused respondent to violate the law. Such considerations prompted the board to reduce the discipline recommended by the Professional Ethics Committee of The Columbus Bar Association-indefinite suspension-and to impose a public reprimand, the board finding that the instant case is distinguishable from this court's recent holding in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 77, 278 N.E.2d 670.

We do not believe that the case at bar is distinguishable from Stein. Furthermore, efforts to distinguish cases of this nature on other than clear-cut grounds serve only to prolong the uncertainty and anguish already besetting those under investigation.

Members of this court, past and present, have uniformly regarded the constitutional duty to discipline fellow lawyers as both a difficult and unpleasant one to perform. However, it also ranks among the most important obligations residing in the court. In the execution of this duty, the rule in Stein was...