Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart - 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 Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart, 95 Ohio St.3d 135, 2002-Ohio-1758.]

TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. LOCKHART.
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart, 95 Ohio St.3d 135, 2002-Ohio-1758.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension with no credit for time
served under previous suspension -- Conviction for pretty theft --
Petitioning for reinstatement and not informing court of felony theft
charges or conviction for petty theft.
(No. 2001-2177 -- Submitted January 30, 2002 -- Decided May 1, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-35.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} On November 10, 1998, we suspended respondent, Carole Ann
Lockhart of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0038474, from the practice
of law for two years with one year suspended. Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart
(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 7, 701 N.E.2d 686. In our order of suspension, we
conditioned her reinstatement on the payment of all fines and costs related to her
actions and submission to a complete psychiatric examination by a physician. In
March 2000, respondent submitted to such an examination, and the physician
reported that she was ready to return to the practice of law without restrictions.
{¶2} Two months later, in May 2000, respondent stole merchandise
from a retail clothing store in Toledo. She was served with a warrant for felony
theft on May 13, 2000, and appeared in court on that charge on May 22, 2000, and
again on June 27, 2000. On June 29, 2000, respondent entered a plea of no
contest to a charge of petty theft and was found guilty and later sentenced to a
ninety-day suspended jail term, a fine of $250, costs, and one year's probation.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶3} On June 29, 2000, respondent filed a petition for reinstatement
with this court, signed and verified on June 15, 2000, in which she stated under
oath that she possessed the moral qualifications required of an attorney at law and
was a proper person to be readmitted to practice. At the time she signed and
verified the petition for reinstatement, respondent was under indictment for felony
theft. She did not notify us of the charges against her or her conviction. On June
8, 2001, we denied her application for reinstatement.
{¶4} On April 9, 2001, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging that respondent's conduct violated several provisions of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent answered, and the matter was
submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court. Based upon testimony received at a hearing and the
stipulations of the parties, the panel found the facts as stated and concluded that
respondent's theft and conviction violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not
engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall
not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation),
and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the
lawyer's fitness to practice law).
{¶5} In mitigation, the panel noted that respondent previously had
several health, family, and financial problems, that she had done significant
volunteer work in the community, and that she showed true remorse for her
actions. The panel recommended that respondent be suspended indefinitely from
the practice of law. Adopting the findings and conclusions of the panel, the board
recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law
with no credit for time served under her previous suspension.
{¶6} Upon review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from
2

January Term, 2002
the practice of law with no credit for time served under her previous suspension.
Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
COOK, J., dissents.
__________________
COOK, J., dissenting.
{¶7} Because the respondent's conduct warrants disbarment, I
respectfully dissent.
__________________
W.
David
Arnold and Thomas J. Szyperski, for relator.
James D. Caruso, for respondent.
__________________

3