Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowen

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowen

528 N.E.2d 172, 38 Ohio St. 3d 323, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 287

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided August 31, 1988·No. No. D.D. 87-35·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that respondent violated the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules. However, to adopt the board’s recommended sanction, we [324] would necessarily be required to deviate substantially from the precedent established by this court.

Respondent’s accomplishments as a practitioner, public servant, and community volunteer have made him a respected member of the bar in this state. However, this court cannot overlook the precedent establishing the sanction for a lawyer’s failure to comply with the federal income tax laws. See, e.g., Toledo Bar Assn. v. Stichter (1985), 17 Ohio St. 3d 248, 17 OBR 484, 478 N.E. 2d 1322 (one-year suspension); Bar Assn. of Greater Cleveland v. Litt (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 98, 5 OBR 178, 449 N.E. 2d 429 (one-year suspension); Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Loha (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 190, 4 OBR 467, 447 N.E. 2d 1306 (one-year suspension); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Mittendorf (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 123, 4 OBR 369, 447 N.E. 2d 103 (one-year suspension); and Columbus Bar Assn. v. Wolfe (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 55, 24 O.O. 3d 113, 434 N.E. 2d 1096 (one-year suspension). Our decision today is controlled by that authority.

Accordingly, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of' law in Ohio for a period of one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Wright and McManamon, JJ., concur. Douglas, J., dissents. Ann McManamon, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for H. Brown, J.

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

Per Curiam.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that respondent violated the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules. However, to adopt the board’s recommended sanction, we [324] would necessarily be required to deviate substantially from the precedent established by this court.

Respondent’s accomplishments as a practitioner, public servant, and community volunteer have made him a respected member of the bar in this state. However, this court cannot overlook the precedent establishing the sanction for a lawyer’s failure to comply with the federal income tax laws. See, e.g., Toledo Bar Assn. v. Stichter (1985), 17 Ohio St. 3d 248, 17 OBR 484, 478 N.E. 2d 1322 (one-year suspension); Bar Assn. of Greater Cleveland v. Litt (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 98, 5 OBR 178, 449 N.E. 2d 429 (one-year suspension); Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Loha (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 190, 4 OBR 467, 447 N.E. 2d 1306 (one-year suspension); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Mittendorf (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 123, 4 OBR 369, 447 N.E. 2d 103 (one-year suspension); and Columbus Bar Assn. v. Wolfe (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 55, 24 O.O. 3d 113, 434 N.E. 2d 1096 (one-year suspension). Our decision today is controlled by that authority.

Accordingly, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of' law in Ohio for a period of one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Wright and McManamon, JJ., concur. Douglas, J., dissents. Ann McManamon, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for H. Brown, J.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowen, 528 N.E.2d 172, 38 Ohio St. 3d 323, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 287 (Ohio 1988).

Pincite

528 N.E.2d 172 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related