Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Meyer

Citation: 1999-Ohio-3

Docket Number: 19991574

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Meyer, 87 Ohio St.3d 324, 1999-Ohio-3.] 
 
 
 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. MEYER. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Meyer (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 324.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with second year stayed 
— Plea of guilty to grand theft and trafficking in food stamps. 
(No. 99-1574 — Submitted October 12, 1999 — Decided December 15, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-46. 
 
In 1996, respondent, Paul E. Meyer of Peninsula, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0050292, was indicted by a grand jury on one count of grand theft 
and one count of trafficking in food stamps.  Respondent had applied for and 
received over $23,000 in public assistance, including food stamps, for which he 
was not eligible.  In 1997, respondent pled guilty to the charges, and he received 
treatment in lieu of conviction after the common pleas court determined, among 
other things, that his drug dependence was a factor leading to his criminal charges.  
Respondent repaid the money to the Ohio Department of Human Services. 
 
On August 10, 1998, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with violating several Disciplinary Rules.  The matter was 
submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court (“board”) based on the agreed stipulations of the parties and 
the evidence introduced at the hearing. 
 
The panel found the facts as previously set forth and, in accordance with the 
parties’ stipulations, concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) 
(engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6) 
(engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
 
 
2
 
In mitigation, the panel found that respondent’s misconduct was caused by 
his addiction to alcohol and marijuana, that he had been in remission from his 
addictions since 1997, and that he regularly attends Alcoholics Anonymous 
meetings.  The panel further found that no client had ever been harmed by 
respondent’s conduct. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for two years, with the second year stayed and monitoring for both 
years by relator and the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program.  The board adopted the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Stephen A. Fallis, Joseph S. Kodish and James Whited, for relator. 
 
John A. Casalinuovo, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  A definite suspension from the practice of law with a portion of the 
suspension stayed is an appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct, as 
mitigated by respondent’s sincere efforts to treat his substance-abuse addictions 
and his complete restitution of the public assistance he illegally obtained.  See, 
e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Carter (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 568, 629 N.E.2d 430; 
Disciplinary Counsel v. McElrath (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 131, 642 N.E.2d 370; 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Bonetti (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 204, 658 N.E.2d 250, all cases in 
which respondents received treatment for substance-abuse dependency in lieu of 
conviction.  Although not explicit in the board’s findings, there is testimony in the 
record that respondent and his family did qualify initially for public assistance 
when respondent first applied for it (after moving his family back to Ohio in 1993 
following his loss of employment in North Carolina) and that respondent repaid all 
of the public assistance he had received, even the amounts for which he arguably 
 
 
3
had qualified.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for two years, with the second year of the suspension stayed, and 
respondent is to be monitored by relator and the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
for both years.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.