Columbus Bar Assn. v. Magana - 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

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Magana, 88 Ohio St.3d 150, 2000-Ohio-284.]

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. MAGANA.
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Magana (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 150.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Engaging in illegal
conduct involving moral turpitude -- Engaging in conduct adversely
reflecting on fitness to practice law -- Advancing financial assistance to a
client -- Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation -- Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice.
(No. 99-1558 -- Submitted October 12, 1999 -- Decided February 23, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-03.

On February 17, 1998, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a two-count
complaint charging respondent, Gualberto Magana of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0030703, with violating the Code of Professional Responsibility
and Rules for the Government of the Bar. Respondent answered, and the matter
was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court ("board").

The panel found that from October 1994 through March 1996, respondent
represented Michelle Tincher-Khalil in a personal-injury matter. He also

represented Tincher-Khalil in a paternity case from November 1995 through either
May 1996, when respondent claims Tincher-Khalil discharged him, or August
1996, when a decision in the case was rendered. In December 1995, during the
course of these representations, Tincher-Khalil moved into and lived in rental
property owned by respondent. Respondent did not charge Tincher-Khalil rent, but
in May 1996 respondent filed a complaint to evict her for nonpayment of rent.
Sometime after May 1996, and definitely during the period from July to September
1996, respondent had sexual encounters with Tincher-Khalil. Later, in December
1996, respondent prepared pleadings for Tincher-Khalil with which she could
initiate a divorce proceeding pro se. No evidence indicates that the documents
were ever filed.

The panel concluded that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3)
(engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law), 5-103(B)
(advancing financial assistance to a client), and 1-102(A)(1) (violating a
Disciplinary Rule).

The panel further found that on June 20, 1997, respondent pled guilty in the
United States District Court to a felony offense of illegally acquiring and
possessing United States Department of Agriculture food stamps. He was fined,
put on probation, and required to make restitution and perform two hundred hours

2

of community service. The panel further noted that on June 18, 1998, based upon
this conviction, we suspended respondent for an interim period. In re Magana
(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 1446, 695 N.E.2d 268.

The panel concluded that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(1), 1-
102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6).

The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law with no credit for time served under the pending interim
suspension. The board adopted the findings of the panel. The board also
concluded that with respect to his representation of Tincher-Khalil, respondent
violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(6), and 5-103(B), and that with respect to the
acts pertaining to his felony conviction respondent violated 1-102(A)(3), 1-
102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6). The board adopted the recommendation
of the panel.
__________________

Shawnell Williams, Stephen S. Francis and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator.

Ralph A. Kerns, for respondent.
__________________

3

Per
Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in
Ohio with no credit for time served under his pending interim suspension. Costs
are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

4