Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Hart, No. 86

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; C. WILLIAM O'NEILL; WILLIAM B. BROWN
Citation54 Ohio St.2d 257,375 N.E.2d 1246
Parties, 8 O.O.3d 229 OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. HART. D. D.
Decision Date17 May 1978
Docket NumberNo. 86

Page 257

54 Ohio St.2d 257
375 N.E.2d 1246, 8 O.O.3d 229
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

v.
HART.
D. D. No. 86.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
May 17, 1978.

[375 N.E.2d 1247] On March 10, 1966, an information was filed against respondent, Charles E. Hart, Jr., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, charging that Hart "did willfully and knowingly fail to make and file" federal income tax returns for the calendar years of 1960, 1961 and 1962, in violation of Section 7203, Title 26, U.S.Code. Upon entering a plea of nolo contendere Hart was sentenced to two years of imprisonment and was fined $2,000. The prison sentence was suspended and Hart was placed on probation.

Thereafter, relator, the Ohio State Bar Association, filed a complaint against respondent, charging him with misconduct as an attorney at law. Specifically, respondent was charged with violation of Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, then in effect.

At that time the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (the board) recommended that respondent be suspended for an indefinite period from the practice of law. This court reviewed the matter, and on June 26, 1968, confirmed the recommendation of the board. (Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Hart (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 97, 238 N.E.2d 560.)

On July 19, 1977, respondent filed a petition for reinstatement to the practice of law. A hearing was held on the petition, with respondent present and represented by counsel and relator appearing by counsel to oppose the reinstatement of respondent. On January 9, 1978, the board

Page 258

filed its report with this court, wherein it was recommended that Hart's petition for reinstatement to the practice of law be denied.

The matter is now before this court for consideration of the report of the board and the respondent's objections to its findings of fact and recommendation.

Albert L. Bell, Columbus, Frank D. DeFrancis, Dayton, William L. Clark and John R. Welch, Columbus, for relator.

Peter W. Swenty, Cincinnati, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Gov.R. V(25) sets forth the burden of proof to be borne by an individual seeking reinstatement to the bar, and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

"Requisites for Reinstatement. No person shall be reinstated unless he has established by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses all of the qualifications, mental, educational and moral, which would have been a requirement of an applicant for admission to the Bar of Ohio at the time of his original admission, and that he is now a proper person to be readmitted to the Bar [375 N.E.2d 1248] of Ohio, notwithstanding the previous disciplinary action taken against the Petitioner. In such case the order...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Practice and procedure: Patent and trademark cases rules of practice; representation of others before Patent and Trademark Office,
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...Easler, 272 S.E.2d 32 (S.C. 1980); Crawford v. State Bar of California, 7 Cal. Rptr. 746 (Cal. 1960); and Ohio State Bar Ass'n. v. Hart, 375 N.E.2d 1246 (Ohio 1978). Like a suspended or disbarred attorney, who ``is not the same as a layman,'' In re Christianson, 215 N.W.2d at 925, the same ......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...Easler, 272 S.E.2d 32 (S.C. 1980); Crawford v. State Bar of California, 7 Cal. Rptr. 746 (Cal. 1960); and Ohio State Bar Ass'n. v. Hart, 375 N.E.2d 1246 (Ohio 1978). Like a suspended or disbarred attorney, who ``is not the same as a layman,'' In re Christianson, 215 N.W.2d at 925, the same ......
  • City of Cincinnati v. Alexander, No. 77-1044
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • May 17, 1978
    ...claim is asserted, briefed or argued by the appellee that the judgment should be affirmed irrespective of the validity of the arrest. 5 [375 N.E.2d 1246] In light of the above, we deem it necessary to assume as implied in this appeal what was made express in Wallace, i. e., a concession by ......
1 cases
  • City of Cincinnati v. Alexander, No. 77-1044
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • May 17, 1978
    ...claim is asserted, briefed or argued by the appellee that the judgment should be affirmed irrespective of the validity of the arrest. 5 [375 N.E.2d 1246] In light of the above, we deem it necessary to assume as implied in this appeal what was made express in Wallace, i. e., a concession by ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT