Columbus Bar Assn. v. Culbreath, 99-1894.
| Decision Date | 22 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-1894.,99-1894. |
| Citation | 88 Ohio St.3d 271,725 NE 2d 629 |
| Parties | COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. CULBREATH. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Terry K. Sherman and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator.
Larry H. James, for respondent.
We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six months with the entire six months stayed. During the six-month stayed suspension, respondent shall be on probation assisted in his practice by a mentor chosen by relator, with whom respondent shall cooperate. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
COOK, J., dissenting. I agree with the majority that suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case, but I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to stay the entire suspension in favor of supervised probation.
The majority's decision to suspend respondent finds support in the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions ("ABA Standards").1 Respondent aided a nonlawyer in the practice of law in violation of DR 3-101(A). In doing so, respondent breached a duty that he owed to the legal profession and contravened a Disciplinary Rule that protects the public by restricting the practice of law to those who have met the necessary educational standards of the profession. The ABA Standards suggest that "[s]uspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system." Standard 7.2 (1992 Amend.).2
Noting respondent's leadership in the community, the majority adopts the board's recommendation to stay the entirety of respondent's suspension in favor of a supervised probationary period. But the single mitigating factor cited by the majority is outweighed by the aggravating factors present in this record. Respondent stipulated that, as Samuels's attorney, he knowingly withheld information concerning the Bryant matter from the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee. Respondent also conceded that he initially failed to respond to the grievance in this case. This court has previously suspended attorneys for violations of DR 3-101(A) when those violations were aggravated by other factors. See, e.g., Wayne Cty. Bar Assn. v. Naumoff (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 637, 660 N.E.2d 1177; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Pavlik, 00-400.
...MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 1. See, e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v. Culbreath (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 271, 725 N.E.2d 629 (respondent referred to nonlawyer as "my partner" and permitted him to make opening statements and examine witness......
-
Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Culbreath
...for assisting a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law and failing to disclose the assistance. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Culbreath, 88 Ohio St.3d 271, 725 N.E.2d 629 (2000).{¶ 2} On August 16, 2010, relator, Columbus Bar Association ("CBA"), filed a complaint charging Culbreath with thre......
-
Portage County Bar Association v. Mitchell, 100 Ohio St.3d ___ (Ohio 12/24/2003), 2003-1512.
...incident and the outcome of his representation would not have changed absent the misconduct." See, also, Columbus Bar Assn. v. Culbreath (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 271, 725 N.E.3d 629 (six-month stayed suspension for misconduct that included a violation of DR {¶14} Accordingly, respondent is her......
-
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Johnson, 2001-2204.
...in consideration of an attorney's previously unblemished professional record and good public works. See Columbus Bar Assn. v. Culbreath (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 271, 725 N.E.2d 629 (six-month suspension stayed with probation and mentoring ordered based on community leader's service) and Discip......