Kentucky Bar Association v. Harold McClure Schwarz, III
This text of Kentucky Bar Association v. Harold McClure Schwarz, III (Kentucky Bar Association v. Harold McClure Schwarz, III) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Kentucky Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky 2020-SC-0318-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
HAROLD MCCLURE SCHWARZ III RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
On April 22, 2020, the Ohio Supreme Court indefinitely suspended
Harold McClure Schwarz III1 from the practice of law. Thereafter, the Kentucky
Bar Association (KBA) filed a petition with this Court asking that we impose
reciprocal discipline pursuant to SCR 3.435. We ordered Schwarz to show
cause why we should not impose such discipline and he failed to respond to
that order. Because Schwarz failed to show cause as to why we should not
impose reciprocal discipline, this Court hereby imposes an indefinite
suspension from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, as
consistent with the order of the Ohio Supreme Court.
1Schwarz was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on July 19, 2010. His bar roster address is listed as 3475 Ridgewood Road, Akron, Ohio 44333, and his KBA number is 93585. I. BACKGROUND
In October 2018, Schwarz was charged by a grand jury of two felonies—
importuning, a fifth degree felony, and attempted unlawful sexual conduct with
a minor, a fourth-degree felony. In February 2019, Schwarz pleaded guilty to
importuning for soliciting an undercover law-enforcement officer who posed as
a 15-year-old boy. Schwarz had several sexually-charged conversations with
the undercover officer and made plans to meet the boy. According to the terms
of the plea, the attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor charge was
dismissed.
The Supreme Court of Ohio originally suspended Schwarz on an interim
basis on March 22, 2019, and then indefinitely suspended him from the
practice of law on April 22, 2020. At his disciplinary hearing in Ohio, Schwarz
admitted his conduct. Ohio’s Board of Professional Conduct found that he
violated its Rule 8.4(b), which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that
reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness and Rule 8.4(h)
which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on
the lawyer’s fitness to practice law. While Kentucky does not have a rule
8.4(h), our Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.130-8.4(b) combines Ohio’s Rules 8.4
(b) and (h), providing that “it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
However, even if these rules did not align, SCR 3.130–3.4(c) states that a
lawyer shall not “knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal
2 except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation
exists.” Furthermore, we have held “SCR 3.435 does not require that the rules
be identical to allow for the imposition of reciprocal discipline.” KBA v.
Meehan, 237 S.W.3d 546, 547 (Ky. 2007).
II. ANALYSIS
If an attorney licensed to practice law in this Commonwealth receives
discipline in another jurisdiction, SCR 3.435(4) generally requires this Court to
impose identical discipline. Furthermore, SCR 3.435(4)(c) requires this Court
to recognize that “[i]n all other respects” a final adjudication of misconduct in
another jurisdiction establishes conclusively the same misconduct for purposes
of a disciplinary proceeding in Kentucky. Pursuant to SCR 3.435(4), we impose
reciprocal discipline as Schwarz failed to prove “by substantial evidence: (a) a
lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the [Ohio] disciplinary proceeding, or (b) that
misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in this
State.”
III. ORDER
Having failed to timely show sufficient cause, it is hereby ORDERED as
follows:
1. Schwarz is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law
in Kentucky until such a time that he fulfills the requirements of
the Ohio Supreme Court’s order suspending him indefinitely in
that state; and
3 2. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Schwarz shall pay all costs
associated with these proceedings; and
3. Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Schwarz shall, within ten (10) days from
the entry of this Opinion and Order, notify all clients, in writing, of
his inability to represent them; notify, in writing, all courts in
which he has matters pending of his suspension from the practice
of law; and furnish copies of all letters of notice to the Office of Bar
Counsel. Furthermore, to the extent possible, Schwarz shall
immediately cancel and cease any advertising activities in which he
is engaged.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: October 29, 2020.
______________________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Kentucky Bar Association v. Harold McClure Schwarz, III, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kentucky-bar-association-v-harold-mcclure-schwarz-iii-ky-2020.