Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraft

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraft

449 N.E.2d 1303, 5 Ohio St. 3d 197, 5 Ohio B. 413, 1983 Ohio LEXIS 746

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 22, 1983

DocketD.D. No. 83-2

StatusPublished

This text of 449 N.E.2d 1303 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraft) 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. Kraft, 449 N.E.2d 1303, 5 Ohio St. 3d 197, 5 Ohio B. 413, 1983 Ohio LEXIS 746 (Ohio 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent claims that “evidence presented in the form of certified exhibits, even though acknowledged in the answers as accurate records of the Courts, does not, in the absence of testimony or some other form of proof, establish that Respondent engaged in specific conduct sufficient to constitute violations of misconduct under DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5) and (6) and DR 9-102.” We disagree.

It is well-established that an attorney’s conduct need not be criminal to subject him to disciplinary procedures. Accordingly, the quantum of proof required to warrant discipline or disbarment is different from that demanded for conviction of a criminal charge. Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Weaver (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 97, 100 [70 O.O.2d 175]. This court has previously held that certain conduct, as evidenced from the transcript of the convictions themselves, warrants professional discipline. E.g., Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Moore (1976), 45 Ohio St. 2d 57 [74 O.O.2d 84]; Dayton Bar Assn. v. Prear (1964), 175 Ohio St. 543 [26 O.O.2d 220]. Applying this principle to the present case, we find that the documents submitted into evidence herein were sufficient to establish the underlying factual matters which served as the basis for the criminal convictions and which allegedly constitute misconduct under the disciplinary rules.

Upon a review of all the facts and circumstances as presented to the board and after careful consideration of respondent’s objections, this court finds that respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5) and (6) and DR 9-102, and concurs with the recommendation of the board.

It is the judgment of this court that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent claims that “evidence presented in the form of certified exhibits, even though acknowledged in the answers as accurate records of the Courts, does not, in the absence of testimony or some other form of proof, establish that Respondent engaged in specific conduct sufficient to constitute violations of misconduct under DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5) and (6) and DR 9-102.” We disagree.

It is well-established that an attorney’s conduct need not be criminal to subject him to disciplinary procedures. Accordingly, the quantum of proof required to warrant discipline or disbarment is different from that demanded for conviction of a criminal charge. Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Weaver (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 97, 100 [70 O.O.2d 175]. This court has previously held that certain conduct, as evidenced from the transcript of the convictions themselves, warrants professional discipline. E.g., Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Moore (1976), 45 Ohio St. 2d 57 [74 O.O.2d 84]; Dayton Bar Assn. v. Prear (1964), 175 Ohio St. 543 [26 O.O.2d 220]. Applying this principle to the present case, we find that the documents submitted into evidence herein were sufficient to establish the underlying factual matters which served as the basis for the criminal convictions and which allegedly constitute misconduct under the disciplinary rules.

Upon a review of all the facts and circumstances as presented to the board and after careful consideration of respondent’s objections, this court finds that respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5) and (6) and DR 9-102, and concurs with the recommendation of the board.

It is the judgment of this court that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

449 N.E.2d 1303, 5 Ohio St. 3d 197, 5 Ohio B. 413, 1983 Ohio LEXIS 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-kraft-ohio-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack