Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Whitten, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams (1993), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment --
Conviction for failure to report monetary transactions and
structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements
-- Participation in a money-laundering scheme.
(No. 92-2537 -- Submitted February 2, 1993 -- Decided
April 7, 1993.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-11.
On May 16, 1991, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio entered a judgment of conviction
against respondent, Farris E. Williams (Attorney Registration
No. 0029147), in case No. 1:90CR0187, United States v.
Williams. These proceedings arose from Williams's involvement
in a scheme to "launder" proceeds from the sale of illegal
drugs. On October 10, 1991, this court indefinitely suspended
Williams from the practice of law pursuant to former Gov. Bar
R. V(9)(a)(iii) (interim suspension for felony conviction).
See In re Williams (1991), 62 Ohio St. 3d 1429, 578 N.E.2d
821. Subsequently, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel,
filed a complaint charging Williams with violating DR
1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct involving moral turpitude) and
1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation). The matter was heard before a panel of the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court ("board") on July 31, 1992. The parties also
filed extensive stipulations.
In 1988, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") commenced an
undercover operation in which an IRS agent, posing as a drug
dealer, purportedly sought to "launder" -- i.e., disguise the
source of -- proceeds from illegal drug sales, thereby evading
federal laws requiring that certain currency transactions be
reported. The agent contacted Frank Coyle to arrange such a
scheme. Coyle directed the agent to contact Williams's law
partner, Ralph Jones.
Coyle arranged for the agent to give the illegal proceeds

to Jones. Coyle also established a brokerage account. Over
time, Jones was to issue checks in various amounts to the
brokerage account, and Coyle was to use the account to channel
the funds back to the agent. Williams agreed with Jones to
participate in the money laundering. By his own admission,
Williams knew these transactions were illegal and believed the
sums involved were fruits of crime.
On September 21, 1988, the agent gave Williams and Jones
$50,000 to be laundered and an additional $5,000 as a fee for
this service. Between September 21, 1988 and February 15,
1989, Williams wrote two checks, transferring $15,500 from the
law firm's office account to the brokerage account. On May 3,
1989, the agent delivered another $50,000 to Williams and Jones
to be laundered, along with a $7,500 fee.
On July 24, 1990, a federal grand jury indicted Williams,
Jones, and Coyle for participating in the money-laundering
scheme. On August 8, 1990, pursuant to a plea agreement,
Williams pled guilty to one count of the indictment in exchange
for the dismissal of the other counts against him. Pursuant to
his plea, Williams was convicted of violating Section 5324(1),
Title 31, U.S. Code (failure to report monetary transactions;
structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements) in
conjunction with Section 2, Title 18, U.S. Code (aiding and
abetting). The court sentenced Williams to ten months'
imprisonment, followed by two years' supervised release, and
fined him $500.
Williams stipulated, and the panel found, that his
participation in the money-laundering scheme violated DR
1-102(A)(3) and (4). However, the panel also noted the
government's stipulation in the plea agreement that Williams
was the least culpable participant in the scheme, rendered
"substantial, timely, truthful and complete" cooperation with
the government, and accepted responsibility for his crime. The
panel recommended indefinite suspension, and the board
concurred.

J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harald F.
Craig III, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Otha M. Jackson, for respondent.

Per Curiam. We concur in the board's findings, but we
cannot follow its recommendation. Williams knowingly conspired
to launder what he thought to be profits from illegal drug
sales. Such conduct speaks for itself. Disbarment is the only
appropriate sanction.
Accordingly, we order that Farris E. Williams be
permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs
taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.