Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Coombs

Citation: 1999-Ohio-398

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-04-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. COOMBS. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Coombs (1999), __ Ohio St.3d __.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with sanction stayed — 
Practicing law before admission to practice law — Improper notarization of 
leases. 
(No. 98-2656 — Submitted February 10, 1999 — Decided April 28, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-69. 
 
On March 2, 1998, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed an amended 
complaint charging respondent, Robert J. Coombs of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0058755, with violating several Disciplinary Rules. After 
respondent answered, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court. 
 
The panel found that after respondent had graduated from law school and 
before he was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in May 1992, he represented 
Samuel Vitrano in several legal matters.  In June 1991, he appeared in Akron 
Municipal Court for Vitrano in a criminal matter and signed a release of claims by 
Vitrano against the city in return for the city’s dismissal of a criminal assault 
charge against Vitrano.  Respondent billed Vitrano $75 per hour for his legal 
services in connection with the dismissal of the criminal charge, including 
respondent’s conferences with the prosecutor, witnesses, and the court, as well as 
his attendance at a pretrial hearing.  In August 1991, respondent wrote a letter to 
Vitrano, advising him to settle a case involving a contract dispute with the 
Connecticut School of Broadcasting.  In November and December 1991, 
respondent performed legal services for Vitrano involving a child-support matter, 
including drafting a proposed child-support order. 
 
2
 
The panel further found that in September 1992, only a few months after 
respondent was admitted to practice law in Ohio, respondent prepared two separate 
leases for Vitrano, Vitrano’s wife, Karen, and John and Sharon Kolinoff.  
Respondent notarized Karen Vitrano’s signature on both leases, even though she 
did not appear before him either to sign the leases or acknowledge the signatures 
on the leases.  Respondent subsequently settled a malpractice case brought against 
him by the Vitranos. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct in representing Vitrano in 
legal matters before respondent was admitted to practice law violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), (5) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), and (6) (engaging in any other conduct that adversely 
reflects on lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The panel additionally concluded that 
respondent’s conduct in notarizing Vitrano’s wife’s signature on the leases even 
though she did not sign the leases violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 7-102(A)(5) 
(knowingly making a false statement of law or fact), (6) (participating in the 
creation of evidence when attorney knows or it is obvious that the evidence is 
false), and (8) (knowingly engaging in other illegal conduct or conduct contrary to 
a Disciplinary Rule). 
 
In mitigation, the panel found respondent’s misconduct, though not justified 
by respondent’s claims at the hearing that he had not engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law, were isolated incidents that occurred either before or shortly after 
respondent’s admission to the bar, and that since the time of these incidents, 
respondent had no disciplinary violations and had established himself as a 
competent practitioner.  The panel recommended that respondent be suspended 
from the practice of law for six months, with the suspension stayed and respondent 
 
3
placed on six months’ probation and monitoring by relator.  The board adopted the 
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Alfred E. Schrader and Michael C. Scanlon, for relator. 
 
Robert J. Coombs, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Contrary to respondent’s assertions at the hearing, the practice of law 
encompasses those activities that are incidental to appearances in court, including 
the preparation of legal documents and the management of proceedings on behalf 
of clients.  Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Clapp (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 276, 278, 703 
N.E.2d 771, 772. 
 
Respondent’s misconduct, which included his improper notarization of the 
leases, warrants a six-month suspension from the practice of law with the entire 
term stayed.  Cf. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Reisenfeld (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 30, 31-
32, 701 N.E.2d 973, 974, where we imposed a similar sanction for misconduct that 
included submitting improperly notarized affidavits to a court, emphasizing that 
these improper actions were a “few isolated incidents in otherwise unblemished 
legal careers.”  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six 
months, with the suspension stayed and respondent placed on six months’ 
probation, to be monitored by relator.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.