Disciplinary Counsel v. Bustamante - 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

1 Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bustamante.
2 [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bustamante (1997), ____Ohio St.3d_____.]
3 Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Reciprocal discipline -- Indefinite
4
suspension with permission to apply for readmission after
5
November 18, 1998 if readmitted to the practice of law in
6
Florida -- Conviction of participating in a scheme to defraud
7
and to obtain money from an insurance company by means of
8
false and fraudalent pretenses, representations, and
9
promises.
10
(No. 96-1977 -- Submitted December 11, 1996 -- Decided March 26,
11 1997.)
12
ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the Supreme Court of Florida, No. 82, 884.
13
This cause is pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio in
14 accordance with the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R.
15 V(11)(F).
16
On June 11, 1993, respondent, John Henry Bustamante of Cleveland,
17 Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0009679, was found guilty in federal
18 district court of participating in a scheme to defraud and to obtain money
19 from an insurance company by means of false and fraudulent pretenses,
20 representations, and promises. Respondent's representations caused an

1 insurance company to loan him $725,000 and to loan $2,600,000 to a land
2 development company. Both loans went into default, but respondent was
3 enriched by $269,000.
4
As a result of respondent's felony conviction, we indefinitely
5 suspended respondent on July 29, 1993 from the practice of law in Ohio. In
6 re Bustamante (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 1416, 616 N.E. 2d 244.
7
Effective November 18, 1993, based on respondent's felony
8 conviction, the Supreme Court of Florida suspended respondent from the
9 practice of law in that state. The Florida Bar v. Bustamante (1993), 629
10 So.2d 135. That court referred the matter of respondent's actions to a
11 referee to determine whether respondent had violated any of the Rules
12 Regulating the Florida Bar. As a result of those proceedings, the respondent
13 was disbarred in the state of Florida. The Florida Bar v. Bustamante (1995),
14 662 So.2d 687. This latter decision was transmitted to us by relator, Office
15 of Disciplinary Counsel, as required by Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F), and we
16 issued an order to show cause.

2

1
Respondent's former counsel filed a "Response to Order to Show
2 Cause," and respondent then retained new counsel who filed a "Notice of
3 Filing of Rules."
4
______________________________________
5 Geoffrey
Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant
6 Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
7
Donald C. Brey, for respondent.
8
______________________________________
9 Per
Curiam. Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4) states that when an attorney is
10 disciplined in another jurisdiction, this court "shall impose the identical or
11 comparable discipline imposed in the other jurisdiction, unless the attorney
12 proves * * * (b) [t]hat the misconduct established warrants substantially
13 different discipline in Ohio."
14
As both respondent's former counsel and present counsel point out in
15 their respective filings, a disbarment under Florida State Bar Rule 3-5.1(f)
16 permits the respondent to apply for readmission at any time after November
17 18, 1998, five years from the effective date of his Florida disbarment. In
18 contrast, disbarment under Ohio's Gov.Bar R. V6)(C) would bar respondent

3

1 from ever being readmitted to the practice of law in Ohio. Thus, a Florida
2 "disbarment" is comparable to an Ohio "indefinite suspension."
3
Therefore, respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of
4 law in Ohio with permission to apply for readmission after November 18,
5 1998, if he has been readmitted to the practice of law in Florida. Costs
6 taxed to respondent.
7

Judgment accordingly.
8
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
9 LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
10
MOYER, C.J., not participating.

4