Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Rion

Ohio Supreme Court

Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Rion

500 N.E.2d 1374, 27 Ohio St. 3d 40, 27 Ohio B. 454, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 781

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 26, 1986

DocketD.D. No. 86-19

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 500 N.E.2d 1374 (Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Rion) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Rion, 500 N.E.2d 1374, 27 Ohio St. 3d 40, 27 Ohio B. 454, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 781 (Ohio 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This court finds that respondent was convicted of being an accessory after the fact in assisting in the preparation of a fraudulent tax return. Further, under former Gov. Bar R. Y(8)(b) (now Gov. Bar R. V[9][b]), a certified copy of the judgment entry of conviction is conclusive evidence of the commission of that offense. This court accordingly concurs with the board’s finding that respondent’s actions on which his conviction was based constituted illegal conduct involving moral turpitude and conduct involving fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(S) and (4).

Respondent’s felony conviction and professional misconduct are serious and inexcusable transgressions. However, the board has pointed out the unusual facts and circumstances leading up to the conviction and we are also impressed by the quality and quantity of the character and reputation evidence submitted on respondent’s behalf. See Columbus Bar Assn. v. Harris (1982), 1 Ohio St. 3d 33. Upon review of the entire record in this matter, we believe respondent’s conduct warrants his suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year. Costs shall be taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This court finds that respondent was convicted of being an accessory after the fact in assisting in the preparation of a fraudulent tax return. Further, under former Gov. Bar R. Y(8)(b) (now Gov. Bar R. V[9][b]), a certified copy of the judgment entry of conviction is conclusive evidence of the commission of that offense. This court accordingly concurs with the board’s finding that respondent’s actions on which his conviction was based constituted illegal conduct involving moral turpitude and conduct involving fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(S) and (4).

Respondent’s felony conviction and professional misconduct are serious and inexcusable transgressions. However, the board has pointed out the unusual facts and circumstances leading up to the conviction and we are also impressed by the quality and quantity of the character and reputation evidence submitted on respondent’s behalf. See Columbus Bar Assn. v. Harris (1982), 1 Ohio St. 3d 33. Upon review of the entire record in this matter, we believe respondent’s conduct warrants his suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year. Costs shall be taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

500 N.E.2d 1374, 27 Ohio St. 3d 40, 27 Ohio B. 454, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dayton-bar-assn-v-rion-ohio-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack