Case ID: ohio-st-3d_69/html/0554-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Wright, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 554.]
    (No. 93-2537
    Submitted May 10, 1994
    Decided July 13, 1994.)
    
      
      Geoffrey Stem, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
    
      Duvin, Cohn, Barnard & Messerman and Gerald A Messerman, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We concur in the board’s findings of misconduct. In addition, the board increased the sanction recommended by the panel because of “the calculated, deliberate manner in which Respondent conducted and concealed his fraudulent schemes, his gross abuse of a position of trust and responsibility for personal gain, the amount of the theft, the length of time over which the thefts occurred and a concern that Respondent’s testimony, offered in mitigation and justification of the thefts, instead demonstrated a fundamental lack of appreciation for lawyers’ ethical obligations to the profession and the public.”

We agree with this assessment of respondent’s misconduct and that indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction. Accordingly, James Tyner Crowley is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., AW. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Wright, J., dissents.

Wright, J.,

dissenting. I would follow the recommendation of the panel and impose a two-year suspension, with one of the years being suspended on the conditions described in the majority opinion.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.