Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones - 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. Jones.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones (1993), Ohio St.
3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment --
Conviction for failure to report monetary transactions and
structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements.
(No. 92-2538 - - 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. 92-08.
Respondent, Ralph Jones, Attorney Registration No.
0029158, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, was
arrested in an Internal Revenue Service "sting" operation after
laundering over $50,000 in alleged drug proceeds. On August
23, 1990, respondent pled guilty to violating Section 5324(1),
Title 31, U.S. Code, "failure to report monetary transactions
and structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements,"
a class C felony. The United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, sentenced
respondent to fifteen months, incarceration followed by a two
year supervised release period and fined him $1,000. On
October 10, 1991, respondent was indefinitely suspended from
the practice of law by this court pursuant to former Gov. Bar
R. V(9)(a)(iii) (now Gov. Bar R. V[5][A][3]).
On February 19, 1992, relator, Office of Disciplinary
Counsel, filed a complaint against respondent, alleging
violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct involving moral
turpitude) and 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). In his answer,
respondent admitted most of the allegations contained in the
complaint and admitted violating DR 1-102(A)(4). He denied
violating DR 1-102(A)(3).
These charges were heard by a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
on July 30, 1992. Respondent testified that his actions were
motivated by financial hardship and that the money he received
went towards his law firm's office expenses. Respondent
readily conceded, however, that his economic situation did not

excuse his behavior, and expressed great remorse.
In addition to numerous letters attesting to respondent's
good character, respondent also had Robert Finch testify on his
behalf. Finch, respondent's current employer and lifelong
friend, felt that respondent's conduct was uncharacteristic and
that it was motivated by his need to pay his secretaries. He
stated that his high opinion of respondent's honesty was
unchanged by the incident in question. At the conclusion of
testimony, respondent urged a two-year suspension from the
practice of law with no credit given for time served. Relator
urged an indefinite suspension with no credit given for time
served.
The panel found respondent guilty of violating both DR
1-102(A)(3) and (4). The panel stressed respondent's "active"
participation in the laundering scheme. It was also troubled
by respondent's belief that his conduct did not involve moral
turpitude. The panel recommended that respondent be
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with no credit
given for time served.
The board adopted the findings and recommendation of the
panel, and also recommended that the cost of the proceeding be
charged to respondent.

J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harald F.
Craig III, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Koblentz & Koblentz and Richard S. Koblentz, for
respondent.

Per Curiam. Upon review of the evidence, we hereby adopt
the findings of the board. We decline, however, to adopt the
board's recommended sanction, finding that respondent's
misconduct warrants a more severe penalty. Accordingly,
respondent is hereby 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.