Disciplinary Counsel v. Camera - 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. Camera.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Camera (1994), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension --
Conviction for perjury.
(No. 93-2180 -- Submitted December 7, 1993 -- Decided
March 23, 1994.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-10.
On February 19, 1992, relator, Office of Disciplinary
Counsel, filed a complaint alleging misconduct against
respondent, Michael J. Camera of Lorain, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0000476. Relator charged 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)(5) (conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice); 7-102(A)(3)
(concealment of that required by law to be revealed, during
representation), 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false
statement of fact, during representation), and 7-102(A)(7)
(assisting client in conduct known to be illegal or fraudulent,
during representation). Respondent admitted all allegations
contained in the complaint but, with the exception of DR
1-102(A)(3), did not admit the violations of the Disciplinary
Rules.
The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
on September 29, 1993.
On July 24, 1991, respondent pled guilty to one count of
perjury in violation of R.C. 2921.11(A), a felony of the third
degree. This criminal violation arose from respondent's
signing an affidavit at a sheriff's sale that he was not
attempting to purchase certain specified property for the
benefit of or resale to Song Keith. Song Keith, because of her
conviction in a criminal matter, had to forfeit this property
and had engaged respondent to create a corporation to purchase
the property. Respondent, in fact, knowingly bid on the
subject property to purchase it for Song Keith's benefit and on

her behalf.
The Court of Common Pleas of Lorain County sentenced
respondent to one year's incarceration and fined him $1,000,
and assessed court costs. Respondent has served the sentence
and paid the fine and court costs.
The panel found that respondent violated the Disciplinary
Rules as charged in the complaint. A majority of the panel
recommended that respondent be suspended for two years from the
practice of law and that he be credited for time served since
October 10, 1991, when his suspension began under former Gov.
Bar R. V(9)(a)(iii). One member of the panel recommended 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, it recommended that respondent be
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of
Ohio with credit for one year served. This would, according to
the board's finding, resolve the split among the panel members
and would require respondent to demonstrate his qualifications
prior to reinstatement to the practice of law. The board
further recommended that the costs of the proceedings be taxed
to respondent.

Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harald Craig
III, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Mark H. Aultman, for respondent.

Per Curiam. We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the board. However, we indefinitely suspend
respondent from the practice of law without credit for time
served. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney
and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
Douglas, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent.
I would concur with the recommendations of the board.