Case ID: ohio-st-3d_58/html/0260-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Douglas, J;,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Heffernan.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Heffernan (1991), 58 Ohio St. 3d 260.]
    (No. 90-2090
    Submitted November 28, 1990
    Decided April 3, 1991.)
    
      
      J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Charles T. Brown, for relator.
    
      Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We accept the findings of the board that respondent did not know of the fraud perpetrated on the court at the time of the trial in the Shaker Heights Municipal Court. However, once respondent learned of the fraud and confronted the Fresenda brothers, he had a duty to reveal the fraud to the court. See DR 7-102(B)(l). We consider respondent’s inaction in this matter a serious breach of duty for which a public reprimand is not an adequate sanction.

Accordingly, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Wright and Re snick, JJ., concur.

Douglas and H. Brown, JJ., dissent.

Douglas, J;,

dissenting. I concur in the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, and I would issue a public reprimand of respondent. '

H. Brown, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.