Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wolf - 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 Richland County Bar Association v. Wolf.
2 [Cite as Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wolf (1997), _____Ohio St. 3d ___.]
3 Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Suspended six-month suspension
4
-- Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
5
misrepresentation.
6
(No. 96-1990 -- Submitted February 19, 1997 -- Decided May 21,
7 1997.)
8
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances
9 and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-16.
10
On June 21, 1996, a hearing was held before a panel of the Board of
11 Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
12 ("board") as a result of a complaint filed by relator, Richland County Bar
13 Association, against respondent, Marcus A. Wolf of Mansfield, Ohio,
14 Attorney Registration No. 0008181. Based on the stipulations of the parties
15 and testimony at the hearing, the panel made the following findings.
16
On November 16, 1994, a former female client of respondent, whom
17 respondent had represented in a divorce case, stopped by his office without
18 an appointment. After she walked into the office, respondent locked the
19 door, and he and the client embraced and had sexual intercourse.

1 Respondent then left the office for a court appointment, and the former
2 client went first to Mansfield General Hospital and then to a detective at the
3 Richland County Sheriff's Department. She told both hospital personnel
4 and the detective that the sexual incident was not consensual.
5
On December 1, 1994, respondent denied to the detective that he had
6 sexual intercourse with his former client. Two days later respondent and his
7 counsel contacted the detective and told him that respondent's previous
8 statement was untruthful, and that he did have sexual relations with the
9 woman. As a result of the sexual relations and his lie to the detective, a
10 grand jury charged respondent with two felony counts and one misdemeanor
11 count.
12
At a hearing in the criminal case, the prosecutor requested and the
13 court agreed to reduce the charges against respondent to misdemeanors of
14 falsification and sexual imposition. The former client asserted in an
15 affidavit that the sexual relations were consensual, and she requested that
16 the charges not be pursued. Respondent pled guilty to the misdemeanors,
17 and the trial court sentenced him to two consecutive thirty-day jail terms, of
18 which respondent served only fifty-three days because he had arranged with

2

1 the court to practice law on weekends. Respondent was also ordered to
2 reimburse the county and pay restitution to the former client for any medical
3 or counseling expenses that she may have incurred as a result of the
4 incident.
5
The panel received the testimony of three lawyers and numerous
6 letters from other lawyers attesting to respondent's integrity, reputation, and
7 legal ability. In response to subpoenas, two active judges and one former
8 judge testified on respondent's behalf, and three sitting judges wrote letters
9 in response to subpoenas as to respondent's competency, honesty, and
10 reputation. In addition, the panel received a letter from a psychiatrist stating
11 that his patient, respondent's former client, had suffered little, if any,
12 psychological damage as a result of the incident.
13
Respondent admitted that his act of lying to the detective violated DR
14 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
15 misrepresentation). The panel found this violation and recommended that
16 respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months, with the
17 entire six months stayed. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and
18 recommendations of the panel.

3

1
____________________________
2
William T. McIntyre, for relator.
3
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
4
_____________________________
5
Per Curiam. We have reviewed the record and agree with the
6 findings and conclusions of board. The board has determined that
7 respondent should be sanctioned for his failure to be truthful with the
8 detective investigating the allegations against him. Even though those
9 allegations were based on misleading statements of a former client,
10 respondent was not justified in lying to the detective.
11
Lying to an investigating officer by an attorney is not acceptable and
12 cannot be justified by the emotional and extenuating circumstances in which
13 respondent found himself. We agree with the recommendation of the board
14 and hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months with
15 the entire suspension stayed. Costs taxed to respondent.
16

Judgment accordingly.
17
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER,
18 JJ., concur.

4

1
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.
2
COOK, J., dissenting. Since Sherri Clifton's divorce was finalized
3 just nine days before the sexual intercourse in respondent's office, I agree
4 with the relator that Clifton ought to have been considered an "existing"
5 rather than a "former" client for purposes of assessing the gravity of
6 respondent's disciplinary breach. Moreover, a few days before the incident,
7 Clifton had been a psychiatric in-patient in the Richland Hospital and
8 respondent knew that she was mentally unstable. Considering the above
9 two factors with respondent's guilty pleas to sexual imposition and
10 falsification, which conduct involves moral turpitude, fraud, and deceit, I
11 would impose at least a six-month suspension and stay no part of it.
12
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
13

5