May 5, 2010
The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with recommendations by a hearing panel and its Board and imposed an indefinite suspension rather than the 18 month suspension that had been jointly proposed by the attorney and disciplinary counsel. The attorney had been convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in connection with his title insurance business. The court explained its reasoning as to sanction:
At the hearing, the panel expressed concern that the adoption of the parties' stipulated 18-month suspension would create an inconsistency between the disciplinary sanction and the conditions imposed in the supervised release. In support of the 18-month suspension stipulation, respondent submitted an affidavit stating that the probation officer would petition the district court to lift the condition prohibiting respondent from practicing law after respondent had served one year of his postrelease supervision. We find that indefinite suspension is the proper sanction in these circumstances. Imposing an indefinite suspension will avoid inconsistency between this court's disciplinary sanction and the federal court's criminal sentence and will allow for proper resolution of the underlying criminal case prior to any application for reinstatement to the practice of law.
The court credited time served on the interim suspension that resulted from the conviction. (Mike Frisch)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Avoiding Inconsistency: