Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams - 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

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WILLIAMS.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Disbarment -- Conviction of theft and
receiving stolen property -- Previous indefinite suspension for conviction
of grand theft and forgery.

(No. 97-1749 -- Submitted October 7, 1997 -- Decided December 31,
1997.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-80.

In May 1995, Barbara J. Graybill, owner of Travel Company of Michigan,
d.b.a. Omega Tours, discovered that respondent, Kevin Williams, a.k.a. Kevin
Anthony Williams, of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0040877, whom
she had hired as a bookkeeper in July 1994, had embezzled $47,000 from her
company. In March 1996, respondent pled guilty and was convicted by the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas of felonies of theft and receiving stolen
property. Respondent was sentenced to two and one-half years of imprisonment
and ordered to pay restitution.

Relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a three-count complaint
charging respondent with violations of DR 1-102(A) (3)(engaging in conduct
involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in
conduct that adversely reflects upon the fitness to practice law). After respondent
answered, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
("board") heard the matter and found the facts as alleged in relator's complaint.
The panel also found that in 1991 respondent was convicted of grand theft and
forgery while employed by a law firm in Norwalk, Ohio, and sentenced to five

years' probation. As a result, we indefinitely suspended respondent in 1993 from
the practice of law. Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 41,
607 N.E.2d 832. The panel concluded that respondent had violated the
Disciplinary Rules as charged.

Respondent offered in mitigation that the theft was due to manipulation by
and demands of his wife and family. However, respondent had previously told the
common pleas court in mitigation that he stole the money for the purpose of
completing a sex change from female to male, which had been only partially
accomplished. The panel recommended that respondent be disbarred. The board
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harald F. Craig III,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Kevin A. Williams, pro se.
__________________

Per Curiam. In 1993, we indefinitely suspended respondent who,
diagnosed as suffering from gender dysphoria, explained that the theft from the
law firm was for the purpose of obtaining funds to complete a sex change by
phalloplastic surgery, a very expensive procedure. Respondent attributed the
criminal conduct at that time to psychological turmoil caused by the inability to
complete the sex change and low self-esteem as a husband and provider.

Respondent now offers the same reasons in mitigation for the theft from
Omega Tours in 1995. As Disciplinary Counsel noted to the panel, respondent
was given a second chance in 1991 and before completing the probation period
again committed virtually the same crime for the same reasons. Respondent has

2

clearly violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged in the complaint. Respondent is
hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

3