Akron Bar Assn. v. Coombs - 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

AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. COOMBS.
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Coombs (1999), __ Ohio St.3d __.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension with sanction stayed --
Practicing law before admission to practice law -- Improper notarization of
leases.
(No. 98-2656 -- Submitted February 10, 1999 -- Decided April 28, 1999.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-69.

On March 2, 1998, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed an amended
complaint charging respondent, Robert J. Coombs of Akron, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0058755, with violating several Disciplinary Rules. After
respondent answered, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court.

The panel found that after respondent had graduated from law school and
before he was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in May 1992, he represented
Samuel Vitrano in several legal matters. In June 1991, he appeared in Akron
Municipal Court for Vitrano in a criminal matter and signed a release of claims by
Vitrano against the city in return for the city's dismissal of a criminal assault
charge against Vitrano. Respondent billed Vitrano $75 per hour for his legal
services in connection with the dismissal of the criminal charge, including
respondent's conferences with the prosecutor, witnesses, and the court, as well as
his attendance at a pretrial hearing. In August 1991, respondent wrote a letter to
Vitrano, advising him to settle a case involving a contract dispute with the
Connecticut School of Broadcasting. In November and December 1991,
respondent performed legal services for Vitrano involving a child-support matter,
including drafting a proposed child-support order.

The panel further found that in September 1992, only a few months after
respondent was admitted to practice law in Ohio, respondent prepared two separate
leases for Vitrano, Vitrano's wife, Karen, and John and Sharon Kolinoff.
Respondent notarized Karen Vitrano's signature on both leases, even though she
did not appear before him either to sign the leases or acknowledge the signatures
on the leases. Respondent subsequently settled a malpractice case brought against
him by the Vitranos.

The panel concluded that respondent's conduct in representing Vitrano in
legal matters before respondent was admitted to practice law violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation), (5) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice), and (6) (engaging in any other conduct that adversely
reflects on lawyer's fitness to practice law). The panel additionally concluded that
respondent's conduct in notarizing Vitrano's wife's signature on the leases even
though she did not sign the leases violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 7-102(A)(5)
(knowingly making a false statement of law or fact), (6) (participating in the
creation of evidence when attorney knows or it is obvious that the evidence is
false), and (8) (knowingly engaging in other illegal conduct or conduct contrary to
a Disciplinary Rule).

In mitigation, the panel found respondent's misconduct, though not justified
by respondent's claims at the hearing that he had not engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law, were isolated incidents that occurred either before or shortly after
respondent's admission to the bar, and that since the time of these incidents,
respondent had no disciplinary violations and had established himself as a
competent practitioner. The panel recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for six months, with the suspension stayed and respondent

2

placed on six months' probation and monitoring by relator. The board adopted the
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________

Alfred E. Schrader and Michael C. Scanlon, for relator.

Robert J. Coombs, pro se.
__________________

Per Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the board. Contrary to respondent's assertions at the hearing, the practice of law
encompasses those activities that are incidental to appearances in court, including
the preparation of legal documents and the management of proceedings on behalf
of clients. Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Clapp (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 276, 278, 703
N.E.2d 771, 772.

Respondent's misconduct, which included his improper notarization of the
leases, warrants a six-month suspension from the practice of law with the entire
term stayed. Cf. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Reisenfeld (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 30, 31-
32, 701 N.E.2d 973, 974, where we imposed a similar sanction for misconduct that
included submitting improperly notarized affidavits to a court, emphasizing that
these improper actions were a "few isolated incidents in otherwise unblemished
legal careers." Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six
months, with the suspension stayed and respondent placed on six months'
probation, to be monitored by relator. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

3