Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Lichota, 85

• Decision Date: 17 July 1968
• Docket Number: No. 85,85
• Citation: 15 Ohio St.2d 217,239 N.E.2d 45
• Parties: , 44 O.O.2d 192 TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. LICHOTA et al. D. D.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 217

15 Ohio St.2d 217

239 N.E.2d 45, 44 O.O.2d 192

TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. LICHOTA et al.

D. D. No. 85.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

July 17, 1968.

Respondents, William R. Lichota and Edith Francis Fischer Lichota, attorneys at law and husband and wife, were convicted, after a trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, of the offense of 'having devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and for obtaining money by false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and knowingly conspired to cause the mails to be used for the purpose of executing said scheme to defraud' in violation of Sections 371 and 1341, Title 18 United States Code. Imposition of sentence was suspended by the District Court judge, and respondents were placed on probation for one year.

Relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed complaints with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline against respondents, alleging that they were guilty of professional misconduct by reason of the acts for which they were indicted in the Federal District Court and violation of Canons 6, 29, 32 and 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.

The Board of Commissioners found that respondents '* * * did devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud by false and fraudulent pretense, representations, and promises and knowingly by conspiring to use the mails to defraud, and were convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude * * *.' The board found further that respondents' conduct violated Canons 6, 29, 32 and 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and that each of said respondents thereby was guilty of misconduct as defined in Section 5(a) of Rule XVIII of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. The board recommended that respondents be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.

Charles E. Ide, Jr., and Howard H. Jacobson, Toledo, for relator.

Carl A. Mintz, Cleveland, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Under Section 5(a) of Rule XVIII of the Rules of Practice, misconduct includes '* * * any violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics * * *' and '* * * conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude * * *.' The crime of 'having devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and for obtaining money by false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and knowingly conspired to cause the mails to be used for the purpose of executing said scheme to defraud' is, as a matter of law, a crime involving moral turpitude and constitutes misconduct under Section 5(a) of Rule XVIII. In re Jacoby (1943), 74 Ohio App. 147, 57 N.E.2d 932.

The Board received in evidence certified copies of the judgments of the Federal District Court, which established the fact of respondents' convictions. This was sufficient proof of misconduct in this case. There may be cases in which it will be unclear whether moral turpitude is inherent in the act defined as a crime so that it will be necessary to inquire into the precise conduct of a particular respondent. However, this is not such a case.

Additional evidence was presented by the relator to the board to...