Disciplinary Counsel v. Liviola - 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 Disciplinary Counsel v. Liviola, 94 Ohio St.3d 408, 2002-Ohio-1049.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LIVIOLA.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Liviola (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 408.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Lying to friend and
taking advantage of friend's mental disability by taking $34,000 for legal
services not performed -- Conviction for wilful failure to provide
information to the Internal Revenue Service.
(No. 01-1255 -- Submitted November 13, 2001 -- Decided February 27, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-69.
__________________

Per Curiam. In December 1996, respondent, Peter S. Liviola of
Ashtabula, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0060112, met with Daniel Krapf, a
college friend from New York who suffered from schizophrenia. Krapf believed
that he had various legal problems, and respondent told Krapf that although he
could not handle the problems himself because he was not admitted to practice in
New York, he had an attorney friend in New York City named Vincent who
would proceed with Krapf's legal matters. There was no attorney named Vincent.

From December 1996 through June 1998, Krapf paid respondent $34,000,
which respondent was to forward to the fictional Vincent to provide Krapf with
legal services. This money was not used for any legal concerns of Krapf. In June
1998, two days after being confronted by federal law enforcement officers,
respondent returned the $34,000 to Krapf.

Respondent did not report $14,205 of the money received from Krapf in
his 1997 federal income tax return. Hence, in April 1999, respondent pled guilty
to a violation of Section 7203, Title 26, U.S.Code (willful failure to provide
information to the Internal Revenue Service), a misdemeanor. He was sentenced

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
to four months in prison, two months of community confinement, and one year of
supervised release. Respondent then filed an amended 1997 federal tax return.

In December 1999, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint charging that respondent's conduct violated several provisions of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent answered, and the matter was
referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
("board"). After a hearing, the panel found the facts as stated and concluded that
by lying to his college friend and taking advantage of his mental disability,
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct
involving moral turpitude). In addition, the panel concurred with respondent's
stipulations that his conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) 1-102(A)(5)
(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law). The panel considered evidence in
mitigation, including evidence relating to respondent's gambling addiction. The
panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice
of law and not readmitted until he has passed a complete psychological and
psychiatric examination.

The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel but
recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law.

We have reviewed the record in this case and adopt the findings,
conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby disbarred
from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
2