Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mesi

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mesi

647 N.E.2d 473, 72 Ohio St. 3d 45

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 19, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2654

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 647 N.E.2d 473 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mesi) 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. Mesi, 647 N.E.2d 473, 72 Ohio St. 3d 45 (Ohio 1995).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We concur in the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6), 5-105(B), 6-101(A)(3), and 9-102(A) and (B). The board’s recommended sanction, however, is not appropriate.

We, like the court in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Shorall (1991), 527 Pa. 413, 592 A.2d 1285, are not moved by respondent’s apologies for his poor judgment and naivety. Respondent pleaded guilty to the felony of which he now stands convicted. As the Shorall court observed, a guilty plea is not a ceremony of innocence, nor can it be rationalized in a subsequent disciplinary proceeding. Id. at 424-425, 592 A.2d at 1291, citing Commonwealth v. Anthony (1984), 504 Pa. 551, 475 A.2d 1303. Moreover, respondent committed several other serious violations of Disciplinary Rules, and we are not inclined to temper the penalty for this misconduct on the basis of his professed good intentions or inadvertence.

We, therefore, order that respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio, and we allow no credit for time served pursuant to the suspension imposed under Gov.Bar R. V(5). Restitution remains a condition for respondent’s reinstatement by operation of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(E)(1). Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Cook, JJ., concur. Douglas and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

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

Per Curiam.

We concur in the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6), 5-105(B), 6-101(A)(3), and 9-102(A) and (B). The board’s recommended sanction, however, is not appropriate.

We, like the court in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Shorall (1991), 527 Pa. 413, 592 A.2d 1285, are not moved by respondent’s apologies for his poor judgment and naivety. Respondent pleaded guilty to the felony of which he now stands convicted. As the Shorall court observed, a guilty plea is not a ceremony of innocence, nor can it be rationalized in a subsequent disciplinary proceeding. Id. at 424-425, 592 A.2d at 1291, citing Commonwealth v. Anthony (1984), 504 Pa. 551, 475 A.2d 1303. Moreover, respondent committed several other serious violations of Disciplinary Rules, and we are not inclined to temper the penalty for this misconduct on the basis of his professed good intentions or inadvertence.

We, therefore, order that respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio, and we allow no credit for time served pursuant to the suspension imposed under Gov.Bar R. V(5). Restitution remains a condition for respondent’s reinstatement by operation of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(E)(1). Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Cook, JJ., concur. Douglas and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

647 N.E.2d 473, 72 Ohio St. 3d 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-mesi-ohio-1995.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack