Disciplinary Counsel v. DiCarlantonio - 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. DiCarlantonio.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. DiCarlantonio (1994),
Ohio St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment --
Conviction for conspiracy to extort a $30,000 bribe in
attorney's position as Steubenville City Attorney.
(No. 93-1737 -- Submitted January 4, 1994 -- Decided
March 23, 1994.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 89-69.
On October 6, 1986, the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio convicted respondent, Anthony R.
DiCarlantonio of Steubenville, Ohio, Attorney Registration No.
0000483, of conspiring to affect commerce by extortion in
violation of the Hobbs Act, Section 1951, Title 18, U.S.Code,
and knowingly obstructing commerce by extortion, also in
violation of the Hobbs Act. The court sentenced respondent to
concurrent twenty-year terms on the two counts. On November
26, 1986, this court indefinitely suspended DiCarlantonio from
the practice of law pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. V(9)(a)(iii),
now Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(3) (interim suspension for felony
conviction).
Respondent successfully appealed his criminal conviction,
and the case was remanded to the district court for a new
trial. On February 8, 1988, following his second jury trial,
respondent was found guilty of both conspiracy to violate and
violation of the Hobbs Act. The court sentenced respondent to
concurrent fifteen-year terms. On appeal, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the conspiracy
conviction and reversed respondent's conviction on the
substantive Hobbs Act violation. United States v.
DiCarlantonio (C.A.6, 1989), 870 F.2d 1058. The Supreme Court
of the United States denied certiorari. DiCarlantonio v.
United States (1989), 493 U.S. 933, 110 S.Ct. 323, 107 L.Ed.2d
313.
In a complaint filed on December 18, 1989, relator, Office
of Disciplinary Counsel, charged in Counts I and II that
respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct

involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and
1-102(A)(6) (any other conduct that adversely reflects on one's
fitness to practice law). The parties submitted the matter
upon stipulated evidence and waived any further evidentiary
hearing.
The stipulated evidence indicated that in 1986, respondent
was City Attorney of Steubenville, Ohio. Attorney Otto Jack,
Jr. sought respondent's interpretation of a local fire
ordinance which apparently prevented one of Jack's clients from
placing propane tanks within the city limits. On May 14, 1986,
respondent met with Jack and Steubenville Fire Chief John
Prayso. Respondent and Prayso proposed that if the ordinance
were favorably changed, they would receive $30,000 for their
part in changing the ordinance. Jack and his client informed
the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") about this proposed
arrangement. On May 28, 1986, $30,000, obtained by Jack and
his client from the FBI, was delivered to respondent. When the
FBI arrested respondent and Prayso later that day, respondent's
briefcase contained $15,000 and Prayso had $15,000 stuffed in
his socks.
Respondent stipulated, and a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
("board") found that respondent's conduct violated DR
1-102(A)(3), (4), and (6). Respondent submitted seventeen
character reference letters commending him and requesting his
ultimate reinstatement to the practice of law. The parties
jointly recommended an indefinite suspension as the appropriate
sanction. The panel recommended, based upon Disciplinary
Counsel v. McClenaghan (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 21, 565 N.E.2d
572, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d
150, 552 N.E.2d 941, that respondent be indefinitely suspended
from the practice of law.
The board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the panel. However, the board determined that the cases
cited by the panel in support of its recommended sanction of
indefinite suspension were distinguishable, i.e., respondent
sold his public office and conspired to extort a $30,000
bribe. The board recommended that respondent be permanently
disbarred and that costs be taxed to respondent.

Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen B. Hull,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Anthony R. DiCarlantonio, pro se.

Per Curiam. We concur in the findings and recommendation
of the board. Anthony R. DiCarlantonio is hereby permanently
disbarred. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.