Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ezzone - 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 Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ezzone, 102 Ohio St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio-1774.]

LAKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. EZZONE.
[Cite as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ezzone, 102 Ohio St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio-1774.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension stayed on conditions --
Conviction for failing to file a federal income tax return.
(No. 2003-2201 -- Submitted February 3, 2004 -- Decided April 21, 2004.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-056.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} Respondent, Donald J. Ezzone of Willoughby, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0021000, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1975. On June 9,
2003, relator, Lake County Bar Association, charged that respondent had been
convicted of failing to file a federal income tax return and thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation). A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline considered the cause on the parties' consent-to-discipline agreement.
See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints
and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court ("BCGD Proc.Reg.").
{¶2} According to the parties' agreement, respondent pled guilty on
January 22, 2002, to one misdemeanor count of failing to file an income tax return
in violation of Section 7203, Title 26, U.S.Code. He was sentenced to home
confinement for six months and placed on probation for one year. Respondent
has since submitted a payment plan proposal to the IRS and is awaiting that
agency's response.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶3} The parties also stipulated in the agreement to mitigating factors
for the panel's consideration. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10. The parties stipulated
that respondent has no prior record of professional discipline, has cooperated fully
in relator's investigation, and has at all times accepted responsibility for his
misconduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d). Moreover, respondent's
misconduct did not involve lies to a court or client, Dayton Bar Assn. v. Millonig
(1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 403, 704 N.E.2d 568 (implying that the most serious
violations of DR 1-102[A][4] involve dishonesty toward a client or court), he has
already been penalized for his actions by the criminal justice system, BCGD
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f), and he was embroiled at the time of his misconduct in
protracted divorce and custody proceedings. Finally, respondent's character and
reputation are highly regarded by the legal community, as evidenced by the
numerous letters of reference submitted by his colleagues. BCGD Proc.Reg.
10(B)(2)(e).
{¶4} As a sanction for his misconduct, the parties jointly suggested that
respondent receive a one-year suspension from the practice of law, with the entire
period stayed on the conditions that he resolve his outstanding tax obligation with
the IRS and commit no further misconduct. In addition, the parties proposed
probationary supervision and that respondent periodically report to a person or
entity designated by the board and verify his satisfaction of the delinquent tax
debt.
{¶5} The panel accepted the consent-to-discipline agreement, thereby
finding that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and recommending the
sanction submitted by the parties. The board also accepted the agreement, found
the cited misconduct, and recommended, in effect, that respondent's law license
be suspended for one year and that the entire suspension be stayed on the
specified conditions.
2

January Term, 2004
{¶6} Based on the consent-to-discipline agreement, we find that
respondent's conviction of failing to file his federal income tax return constitutes
a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). In light of the mitigating factors, we also agree
that a one-year suspension, stayed on conditions and with supervised probation, is
appropriate. Disciplinary Counsel. v. Markijohn, 99 Ohio St.3d 489, 2003-Ohio-
4129, 794 N.E.2d 24.
{¶7} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of
law in Ohio for one year; however, this suspension is stayed on the conditions that
(1) he serve a one-year probation period during which he resolves his federal tax
debt and periodically reports to verify his progress to a supervisory person or
entity designated by the board, and (2) he commit no further misconduct during
the stayed suspension. If respondent violates either condition of this stay, the stay
will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire suspension period. Costs are
taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

Theodore M. Mann Jr. Law Offices and Theodore M. Mann Jr., for relator.

John A. Fatica and Michael C. Hennenberg, for respondent.
__________________
3