Disciplinary Counsel v. DeLong - 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. DeLong, 98 Ohio St.3d 470, 2003-Ohio-1743.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DELONG.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. DeLong, 98 Ohio St.3d 470, 2003-Ohio-1743.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Eighteen-month suspension -- Practicing law for
over nine years after license was suspended -- Consistently failing to
comply with attorney registration requirements.
(No. 2002-2222 -- Submitted February 12, 2003 -- Decided April 23, 2003.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court, No. 02-70.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} Respondent, Mark E. DeLong of Huron, Ohio, Attorney Registration
No. 0018468, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in November 1973. On
August 12, 2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with misconduct
in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and, based on the
parties' stipulations and respondent's testimony, made the following findings.
{¶2} On June 18, 1993, we fined respondent $750 and suspended his
license to practice law for failing to comply with the continuing legal education
("CLE") requirements of Gov.Bar R. X and to pay court-ordered CLE sanctions for
the 1989 and 1990-1991 reporting periods. In re Report of the Comm. on Continuing
Legal Edn. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 1513, 614 N.E.2d 760. Respondent ignored our
order. He continued his employment for a large truck manufacturer as general
counsel. Moreover, he did not inform his employer and only client that his license
had been suspended.
{¶3} Respondent remained employed as general counsel for his
unsuspecting corporate client, which changed hands several times throughout the
1990s, until his retirement on June 30, 2001. And even after his retirement, he

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
continued to practice law as a consultant until February 15, 2002, in direct violation
of our suspension of his license.
{¶4} Respondent also consistently failed to timely comply with attorney
registration requirements imposed by Gov.Bar R. VI. For the biennium registration
periods from 1987 through 1998, respondent always filed his registration materials at
least six months late, once registering almost three years late and once registering
almost five years late. Moreover, respondent had not registered at all, prior to these
proceedings, for the 1999-2000 or 2001-2002 registration periods, and has only
recently begun to fulfill his continuing legal education responsibilities.
{¶5} The panel found, consistent with the parties' stipulations, that
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice) and 3-101(B) (unauthorized practice of law). The panel also found
respondent in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation) because he misrepresented his status as a licensed
attorney in good standing for over nine years, including having his client pay his
attorney registration fees for several reporting periods.
{¶6} In recommending a sanction for respondent's misconduct, the panel
considered as mitigating the fact that respondent ultimately reported his own
misconduct and cooperated completely in the disciplinary process. The panel was
impressed by six character letters describing respondent's professional competence
and integrity and by his receipt of a Bronze Star for service in the Vietnam War. In
addition, respondent offered as mitigating the fact that he had represented only one
client while under suspension and that the client had been satisfied with his work.
{¶7} As aggravating factors, the panel identified the long years in which
respondent disregarded his professional registration and education duties and flatly
ignored the order enforcing those duties. The panel also found untenable
respondent's dishonesty to his client, his colleagues, and the public. The panel thus
rejected the sanction proposed by the parties--an 18-month suspension with credit for
the time respondent has not practiced since February 15, 2002--and recommended
2

January Term, 2003
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a full 18 months. The
board adopted the panel's findings of misconduct and recommendation.
{¶8} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and
3-101(B) and that an 18-month suspension is appropriate. Repeated or continuous
attempts to mislead a client constitute a course of conduct in violation of DR 1-
102(A)(4), which warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law.
Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 113, 729 N.E.2d 343, citing
Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237.
And here, respondent's mitigation evidence does little to offset the fact that he
stopped misrepresenting his status as a licensed attorney at his convenience, not in
compliance with the law. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the
practice of law in Ohio for 18 months. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK, LUNDBERG STRATTON and
O'CONNOR, JJ., concur.

PFEIFER, J., dissents because he would suspend respondent for 18 months with
credit for time served.
__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Mark Aultman, for respondent.
__________________
3