Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball

709 N.E.2d 109, 85 Ohio St. 3d 393

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 28, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2214

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 709 N.E.2d 109 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball) 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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball, 709 N.E.2d 109, 85 Ohio St. 3d 393 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Alice Robie Resnick, J.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. However, because we find respondent’s offenses to be especially serious, we decline to adopt the board’s recommendation regarding sanctions.

The offenses to which respondent pled guilty are described in the bill of particulars as “soliciting] or procuring] another to vote the ballot of another which had not been obtained lawfully from precinct authorities” (fifteen counts) and “soliciting] or procuring] another to commit the offense of knowingly making a false statement on any form for registration or any application or return envelope for an absent voter’s ballot; to-wit: [individuals were] solicited to complete * * * application^] for absent voter[s’] ballot[s] indicating[ ] incorrect address[es]” (fifteen counts). These offenses involve falsifying ballots and applications for ballots. Respondent thus engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).

Moreover, by falsifying ballots and applications for ballots, respondent worked to undermine the very system upon which our country as a democracy is based. True and accurate balloting ensures valid elections, which in turn guarantee that our government is truly representative. By committing these offenses, respondent fundamentally affected the legitimacy of our government and thus engaged in conduct that involves moral turpitude in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3). Finally, by committing these particular offenses, respondent shows a serious lack of respect for the law and thus has engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6).

Additionally, this is respondent’s second disciplinary action. In 1993, this court found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and suspended him from the practice of law for six months. Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 401, 405, 618 N.E.2d 159, 162.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of two years. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents and would adopt the recommendation of the board of a one-year suspension.

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

Alice Robie Resnick, J.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. However, because we find respondent’s offenses to be especially serious, we decline to adopt the board’s recommendation regarding sanctions.

The offenses to which respondent pled guilty are described in the bill of particulars as “soliciting] or procuring] another to vote the ballot of another which had not been obtained lawfully from precinct authorities” (fifteen counts) and “soliciting] or procuring] another to commit the offense of knowingly making a false statement on any form for registration or any application or return envelope for an absent voter’s ballot; to-wit: [individuals were] solicited to complete * * * application^] for absent voter[s’] ballot[s] indicating[ ] incorrect address[es]” (fifteen counts). These offenses involve falsifying ballots and applications for ballots. Respondent thus engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).

Moreover, by falsifying ballots and applications for ballots, respondent worked to undermine the very system upon which our country as a democracy is based. True and accurate balloting ensures valid elections, which in turn guarantee that our government is truly representative. By committing these offenses, respondent fundamentally affected the legitimacy of our government and thus engaged in conduct that involves moral turpitude in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3). Finally, by committing these particular offenses, respondent shows a serious lack of respect for the law and thus has engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6).

Additionally, this is respondent’s second disciplinary action. In 1993, this court found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and suspended him from the practice of law for six months. Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 401, 405, 618 N.E.2d 159, 162.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of two years. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents and would adopt the recommendation of the board of a one-year suspension.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

709 N.E.2d 109, 85 Ohio St. 3d 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-ball-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack