Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Moore, 75-8
| Decision Date | 21 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-8,75-8 |
| Citation | 341 N.E.2d 302,45 Ohio St.2d 57 |
| Parties | , 74 O.O.2d 84 OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. MOORE. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Robert N. Farquhar, Dayton, Albert L. Bell, John R. Welch, Columbus, and Kenneth M. Barnes, Lancaster, for relator.
Charles W. Kettewell and James E. Melle, Columbus, for respondent.
Respondent contends that a judgment of conviction of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns is inadmissible in a disciplinary proceeding before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and, therefore, that he cannot be subject to the imposition of discipline absent proof of misconduct.
In Dayton Bar Assn. v. Prear (1964), 175 Ohio St. 543, 196 N.E.2d 773, this court was presented with a similar situation. After the respondent therein was convicted of three counts of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns, the relator instituted proceedings before the board and introduced only the transcript of the information and convictions. Upon review of the board's action, it was the court's finding that such conduct, as evidenced from the transcript of the convictions themselves, warranted that respondent be indefinitely suspended 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 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, * and Canon 1, DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6), of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent's behavior constituted misconduct as defined in Gov.R. V(5)(a). Furthermore, by his convictions and subsequent incarceration, respondent has lessened public confidence in the legal profession and has reflected substantial discredit upon his fellow lawyers.
The recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline is well taken and respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
* Respondent's failure to file income tax returns for calendar years 1968 and 1969 occurred prior to the adoption of the Code of Professional Responsibility on October 5, 1970, while the Canons of Professional Ethics governed the bar of this state.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Columbus v. Union Cemetery Ass'n
...45 Ohio St.2d 47 ... 341 N.E.2d 298, 74 O.O.2d 79 ... CITY OF BUS, Appellant, ... UNION CEMETERY ASSN., Appellee ... No. 75-262 ... Supreme Court of Ohio ... center of the Red River was the boundary between the state of Texas ... and federal Indian Territory. The court ... ...
-
Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Stimmel, 79-20
...of law in this state. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Pandilidis, supra; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Beall, supra; Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Moore (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 57, 341 N.E.2d 302. It is contended as an additional ground upon which this court should depart from the standard of discipline enunciat......
-
Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Vaporis
...over a number of years has established the admission of a judgment of conviction in disciplinary cases. See Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Moore (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 57, 341 N.E.2d 302; Dayton Bar Assn. v. Radabaugh (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 155, 331 N.E.2d 410; Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Tekulve (1975)......
-
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraft, 83-2
...as evidenced from the transcript of the convictions themselves, warrants professional discipline. E.g., Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Moore (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 57, 341 N.E.2d 302 ; Dayton Bar Assn. v. Prear (1964), 175 Ohio St. 543, 196 N.E.2d 773 . Applying this principle to the present case, ......