Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Mezacapa

Citation: 2004-Ohio-302

Docket Number: 20031809

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-02-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mezacapa, 101 Ohio St.3d 156, 2004-Ohio-302.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MEZACAPA. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mezacapa, 101 Ohio St.3d 156, 2004-Ohio-
302.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. 
(No. 2003-1809 – Submitted December 1, 2003 – Decided February 11, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-39. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Victor Anthony Mezacapa III of Cleveland, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0052023, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1991.  On 
April 14, 2003, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging 
respondent with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause 
on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, which included a joint recitation 
of the facts, admitted misconduct, and suggested sanction. 
{¶2} 
The parties agreed that a client had retained respondent in or 
around June 1998 to represent her in a postdivorce custody proceeding.  In 
December 2001, the client asked him to file a motion to modify her child-support 
payments.  Respondent promptly prepared the motion and an accompanying 
affidavit for filing in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division.  
To accommodate his client, respondent obtained her permission to sign the 
affidavit on her behalf.  But in notarizing the signature on the affidavit, 
respondent did not indicate that he had signed the client’s name with her 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
permission.  He instead notarized the signature as his client’s own, representing 
that it had been “sworn to and subscribed before” him on January 10, 2002.  
Respondent filed the motion and affidavit on January 22, 2002. 
{¶3} 
The parties agreed that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) 
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) 
and (5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) in falsely 
representing the authenticity of his client’s signature.  The parties also stipulated 
mitigating factors and jointly suggested that respondent should be publicly 
reprimanded for this misconduct. 
{¶4} 
After considering that respondent had no prior disciplinary record, 
had not committed his misconduct out of self-interest, had tried to rectify the 
consequences of his misconduct, had fully disclosed his misconduct, and had a 
fine character and reputation, the panel accepted the parties’ consent-to-discipline 
agreement.  The panel thus found respondent in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and 
(5) and recommended a public reprimand.  The board also accepted the 
agreement, found the proposed misconduct, and recommended a public 
reprimand. 
{¶5} 
We agree that respondent committed the cited misconduct and that 
a public reprimand is appropriate.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Thomas (2001), 93 
Ohio St.3d 402, 754 N.E.2d 1263.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly 
reprimanded for having violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5).  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
 
John A. Fatica, for respondent.