Disciplinary Counsel v. Malkin - 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. Malkin.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Malkin (1994), Ohio St.
3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension --
Conviction of grand theft and ten counts of tampering with
records -- Practicing law while unregistered.
(No. 93-1739 -- Submitted January 5, 1994 -- Decided March
23, 1994.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 93-11.
On January 6, 1993, the Secretary of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline notified this court
that repondent, Jack Steven Malkin of Bay Village, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0034018, had been convicted in the
Court of Common Pleas of Lorain County of grand theft and ten
counts of tampering with records, all felonies of the fourth
degree. On January 14, 1993, we ordered respondent
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law pursuant to
Gov. Bar R. V(5)(A)(3).
On February 16, 1993, relator, Office of Disciplinary
Counsel, filed a three-count complaint against respondent with
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. Count
I alleged that respondent had been indicted by the Lorain
County Grand Jury on twelve counts of theft in office, one
count of grand theft, and twelve counts of tampering with
records, and had been convicted of eleven counts, as stated
above. All convictions resulted from respondent's having
falsified documents to obtain money for work he had not
performed after he was appointed to represent indigent criminal
defendants. Count II alleged that respondent had been
terminated from employment with Hyatt Legal Services for
billing for services not performed, not requested by the
client, or both. Count III alleged that respondent had paid
his attorney registration fees late for the 1985/1987,
1987/1989, and 1989/1991 biennia, but had continued to practice
law during the time he was not registered. The complaint
charged respondent with violating 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), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6)
(engaging in any other conduct that adversely reflects on
fitness to practice law), and Gov.Bar R. VI(1) (duty to
register as an attorney and pay fees).
On April 19, 1993, relator and respondent filed agreed
stipulations, recommendation for sanctions, and waiver of
hearing, in which respondent admitted the convictions charged
in Count I of the complaint and admitted practicing law while
unregistered as charged in Count III of the complaint. Relator
then withdrew Count II of the complaint, and the parties
jointly recommended a sanction of indefinite suspension from
the practice of law and waived hearing. The hearing panel and
the Board of Commisioners on Grievances and Discipline both
found that respondent had violated DR 1-102 (A) (3), (4), (5),
and (6) and Gov. Bar R. VI(1), and recommended that respondent
be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
James M. Burge, for respondent.

Per Curiam. We concur in the findings and recommendation
of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from
the practice of law. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright and F.E. Sweeney, JJ.,
concur.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent and would
disbar respondent.