Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Chavers

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Chavers

1997 Ohio 283, 80 Ohio St. 3d 441

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 31, 1997

Docket1997-1313

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1997 Ohio 283 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Chavers) 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. Chavers, 1997 Ohio 283, 80 Ohio St. 3d 441 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Absent any mitigating circumstances, the normal penalty for ignoring previous orders of the court and continuing to practice law while under suspension is disbarment. Disciplinary Counsel v. McDonald (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 628, 646 N.E.2d 819; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Shabazz (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 24, 656 N.E.2d 325. Respondent continued to practice law by appearing in the common pleas court while suspended. His activities were not unlike those of the lawyer in Akron Bar Assn. v. Thorpe (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 174, 532 N.E.2d 752, where we disbarred a suspended attorney who attempted to settle an accident claim. Here, we find no mitigating circumstances as we did in Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 433, 674 N.E.2d 1371, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 392, 683 N.E.2d 1072.

Moreover, respondent continued to practice in the bankruptcy court after being suspended by the Chief Judge of the United States District Court. Contrary to respondent’s opinion at his deposition, such practice involved a violation of the Disciplinary Rules. Because the bankruptcy court is a unit of the United States District Court, Section 151, Title 28, U.S.Code, respondent’s continued practice in the bankruptcy court after suspension by the district court constituted the practice of law in a jurisdiction where doing so violated the regulations of the profession of that jurisdiction. As a consequence, respondent violated DR 3-101(B). Even a practice limited to advising and representing clients solely on *444 federal law and appearing solely in federal court entails other activities in carrying out the practice of law that are not solely federal in nature and warrant state regulation. To file a bankruptcy case, a lawyer must counsel his client on Ohio law relating to exemptions and preferential and fraudulent transfers, among other matters. Respondent, therefore, by necessity counseled his client on Ohio law while he was suspended and not in good standing, although he filed the case in the bankruptcy court.

We accept the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs of these proceedings are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Absent any mitigating circumstances, the normal penalty for ignoring previous orders of the court and continuing to practice law while under suspension is disbarment. Disciplinary Counsel v. McDonald (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 628, 646 N.E.2d 819; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Shabazz (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 24, 656 N.E.2d 325. Respondent continued to practice law by appearing in the common pleas court while suspended. His activities were not unlike those of the lawyer in Akron Bar Assn. v. Thorpe (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 174, 532 N.E.2d 752, where we disbarred a suspended attorney who attempted to settle an accident claim. Here, we find no mitigating circumstances as we did in Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 433, 674 N.E.2d 1371, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 392, 683 N.E.2d 1072.

Moreover, respondent continued to practice in the bankruptcy court after being suspended by the Chief Judge of the United States District Court. Contrary to respondent’s opinion at his deposition, such practice involved a violation of the Disciplinary Rules. Because the bankruptcy court is a unit of the United States District Court, Section 151, Title 28, U.S.Code, respondent’s continued practice in the bankruptcy court after suspension by the district court constituted the practice of law in a jurisdiction where doing so violated the regulations of the profession of that jurisdiction. As a consequence, respondent violated DR 3-101(B). Even a practice limited to advising and representing clients solely on *444 federal law and appearing solely in federal court entails other activities in carrying out the practice of law that are not solely federal in nature and warrant state regulation. To file a bankruptcy case, a lawyer must counsel his client on Ohio law relating to exemptions and preferential and fraudulent transfers, among other matters. Respondent, therefore, by necessity counseled his client on Ohio law while he was suspended and not in good standing, although he filed the case in the bankruptcy court.

We accept the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs of these proceedings are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Ohio 283, 80 Ohio St. 3d 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-chavers-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack