Disciplinary Counsel v. Lash - 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. Barrett, 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. Lash.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lash (1993), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension --
Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation -- Conviction for bank fraud.
(No. 93-1335 -- Submitted August 16, 1993 -- Decided
December 8, 1993.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-31.
In a complaint filed June 1, 1992, relator, Disciplinary
Counsel, charged that respondent, David Lindsay Lash of
Beachwood, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0031571, had pled
guilty to a violation of Section 1344, Title 18, U.S. Code
(bank fraud). The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
("board") on February 19, 1993. The panel considered whether
respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
The facts underlying relator's complaint were stipulated
as follows:
"1. On February 19, 1992, Respondent was indefinitely
suspended from the practice of law by the Ohio Supreme Court
for conviction of a felony. Respondent pled guilty to Bank
Fraud in United States District Court on December 20, 1991.
"2. In 1985, Respondent and his wife were separating. In
order to pay off the wife's car, credit cards, and medical
bills, Respondent and his wife took out a mortgage loan at
First Federal Savings and Loan of Cleveland. At that time, a
home equity line of credit was unavailable. Respondent and his
wife also wanted to change their variable mortgage to a fixed
rate mortgage. Respondent and his wife originally had a
$45,000.00 mortgage on their home. The mortgage was increased
by $15,000.00.
"3. In order to ensure getting the loan, Respondent
overstated his income by approximately $10,000.00.
"4. Medical bills that Respondent and his wife incurred
were from numerous medical problems of their mentally retarded

daughter. Respondent and his wife received the money in April
of 1986 and used the money as indicated.
"5. Respondent and his wife were finally divorced in
April of 1988, after a bitterly fought custody battle. As part
of the divorce, the house had to be sold. The house sold in
the summer of 1989. The $60,000.00 mortgage was paid off from
the proceeds of the home and no loss was incurred by anyone.
"6. In Respondent's divorce proceeding, Respondent's
wife's attorney brought out the income information submitted to
First Federal Savings and Loan in order to show Respondent was
making more money and therefore should pay more child support.
Respondent, under oath, testified honestly that the income he
listed on the 1985 loan application was inflated.
"7. In 1990, Respondent represented a * * * [client] in a
divorce proceeding from * * * [her husband]. * * * [The
husband] read Respondent's divorce file that included the
Referee's report indicating Respondent overstated his income to
First Federal Savings and Loan. * * * [The husband] called
Respondent's law partner and told the partner to tell
Respondent to back off in the * * * [the wife's ] divorce
representation or else. Respondent continued to zealously
represent his client. As a result, * * * [the husband] filed a
complaint with the FBI about the Respondent.
"8. The FBI began investigat[ing] Respondent in March
1991. Respondent[] cooperated with the Federal prosecutor and
eventually pled guilty to bank fraud."
Other evidence presented to the panel established that
respondent was sentenced to perform one hundred hours of
community service, to serve one year on probation, and to pay a
$1,000 fine. Respondent has already complied with his
sentence. He also cooperated with federal officials during the
investigation of his offense, at all times admitting his
wrongdoing and accepting the consequences of his acts.
Based on this evidence, the panel found that respondent
had violated DR 1-102(A)(4). In recommending a sanction, the
panel considered respondent's testimony that he admitted and
took full responsibility for his misconduct. The panel also
considered letters from and testimony of character witnesses,
which established that respondent was a highly respected and
trusted practitioner notwithstanding the misconduct. Even
relator, who felt compelled to recommend an indefinite
suspension in accordance with penalties imposed in prior
similar cases, suggested that respondent be allowed credit for
the time his license had already been suspended and that the
reapplication requirement was too severe for respondent's case.
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for one year, with such suspension period
to have begun on February 19, 1992, the date of his interim
suspension pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. V(9)(a)(iii), now Gov.
Bar R. V(5)(A). The panel relied on Akron Bar Assn. v.
Oestreicher (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 229, 553 N.E.2d 670, in which
an attorney received a one-year suspension with credit for time
served after he had pled guilty to having continued to accept
Social Security checks for his aunt after her death. The board
adopted the panel's findings and its recommendation.

Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna L.
Chesley, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Roger M. Synenberg, for respondent.

Per Curiam. We agree with the board's findings and its
recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered to
serve a one-year suspension from the practice of law in Ohio,
with such suspension to have begun on February 19, 1992. Costs
taxed to respondent.

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