Disciplinary Counsel v. Stanford - 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. Stanford.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stanford (1993),
Ohio St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension --
Engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude --
Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation -- Engaging in conduct that adversely
reflects on fitness to practice law -- Conviction of bank
fraud.
(No. 92-2169 -- Submitted January 6, 1993 -- Decided March
3, 1993.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 91-52.
On December 10, 1991, relator, Office of Disciplinary
Counsel, filed a complaint charging respondent, Byron Timothy
Stanford, Attorney Registration No. 0015770, with one count of
misconduct. The complaint alleged that respondent
misappropriated funds from the real estate trust account of a
real estate title company of which he was president and used
the funds to cover overdrafts on his personal and business bank
accounts. He then covered the misappropriation with further
overdrafts from his personal accounts, and, in turn, made
further misappropriations from the trust account.
According to the complaint, this kiting scheme went on
between February and November 1990. In October 1990,
respondent lost his job with the title company. When the trust
account was made whole, respondent's bank had been defrauded in
the amount of $498,000.
Respondent pled guilty to and was convicted of bank fraud
in federal district court, and, on August 9, 1991, was
sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment and two years'
probation. He made full restitution before pleading guilty.
Because of the felony conviction, respondent was
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law on September
18, 1991.
Respondent admitted the facts stated in the complaint in
his answer, and later stipulated to them.
A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court considered the evidence and
heard the testimony of respondent, his wife, and his father.
Essentially, respondent explained that he misappropriated the
trust funds and originated the kiting scheme to cover losses
incurred from dubious business ventures he had entered into.
Respondent's father testified that he and respondent's mother
had borrowed about $340,000 to help respondent make
restitution. Respondent borrowed another $172,000.
The panel concluded that respondent violated DR
1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral
turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and
1-102(A)(6) (engaging in other conduct that adversely reflects
on the fitness to practice law). Citing respondent's
appearance of genuine remorse, the panel recommended that he be
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio with no
credit for time already served under suspension.
The board adopted the findings and recommendation of the
panel and also recommended that costs be taxed to respondent.

J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna L.
Chesley, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
George D. Jonson, for respondent.

Per Curiam. We concur in the findings and recommendation
of the board. Respondent's crime was a serious breach of
trust. However, the record indicates remorse, and we believe
there may be potential for rehabilitation. Accordingly,
respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice
of law in Ohio without credit for time previously spent under
suspension. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.