Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Schuler

Citation: 2014-Ohio-1127

Docket Number: 2012-1714

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-03-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Schuler, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1127.] 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-1127 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SCHULER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Schuler,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1127.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation and in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law—Indefinite suspension, with credit for time served under an 
interim felony suspension. 
(No. 2012-1714—Submitted October 9, 2013—Decided March 26, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-018. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Robert Carl Schuler of Dublin, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0053140, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1991.  
On October 6, 2011, we suspended Schuler’s license to practice law on an interim 
basis following his September 20, 2011 felony conviction for filing a false tax 
return.  In re Schuler, No. 2011-1678, 2011-Ohio-5139. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} In April 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint 
charging Schuler with two violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility 
arising from the conduct that resulted in his felony conviction.1  In accordance 
with BCGD Proc.Reg. 11, the parties submitted a consent-to-discipline agreement 
containing a recommendation that Schuler be suspended for 18 months with credit 
for time served under the interim suspension.  On the recommendation of a panel 
of its members, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommended that we adopt the consent-to-discipline agreement, but we rejected 
the parties’ recommended sanction and remanded the matter to the board for 
further proceedings.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Schuler, 134 Ohio St.3d 1463, 2013-
Ohio-502, 983 N.E.2d 364. 
{¶ 3} On remand, the parties submitted stipulations of fact, misconduct, 
and aggravating and mitigating factors and recommended that Schuler serve a 
two-year suspension with credit for time served under his interim felony 
suspension.  A panel of the board conducted a hearing and adopted the parties’ 
stipulations of fact and misconduct, but the panel determined that Schuler’s 
misconduct warranted an indefinite suspension with credit for time served.  The 
board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety, and no objections have been filed. 
{¶ 4} Having reviewed the record, we accept the board’s findings of fact 
and misconduct and agree that an indefinite suspension with credit for time served 
is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} In March 2011, Schuler pled guilty to one felony count of filing a 
false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) in the United States District 
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  As part of his plea agreement, Schuler 
                                                 
1 Relator charged Schuler with misconduct under the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility for acts occurring before February 1, 2007, the effective date of the 
Rules of Professional Conduct. 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
admitted that he knowingly and willfully made and subscribed to a tax return for 
calendar year 2002 that he did not believe to be true and correct.  Specifically, 
Schuler’s 2002 tax return reported a total adjusted gross income of $1,162,087, 
but Schuler knew that he had received an additional $360,000 in business income 
that he did not include on the return.  The United States dismissed two other 
counts against Schuler—a count for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud 
and a count for false declarations before a grand jury. 
{¶ 6} On September 20, 2011, the federal court sentenced Schuler to one 
year of probation in a home-confinement program and assessed him a $50,000 
fine.  The court and probation authorities ordered Schuler to pay the fine in 
installments of $1,000 per month, and the judge waived the requirement that he 
pay interest. 
{¶ 7} At the May 2013 panel hearing, Schuler testified that he had 
completed his probation in September 2012 and was current on the installment 
payments for his fine.  Schuler also testified that in 2009, during the course of the 
federal investigation, he had sent the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) a check 
for approximately $80,000, which was the amount of taxes that his accountant had 
determined he should have paid on the unreported $360,000 in income.  
According to Schuler, the IRS accepted his check, although he acknowledged that 
the agency has authority to issue other civil penalties for late payment. 
{¶ 8} Based on this record, the board found that Schuler’s conduct 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and (A)(6) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness 
to practice law).  We agree with the board’s findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
the sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 
Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  However, because each 
disciplinary case is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B), and may take into account all relevant factors in determining 
which sanction to impose. 
Aggravating and mitigating factors 
{¶ 10} In aggravation, the parties have stipulated and the board has found 
that Schuler acted with a dishonest motive.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  
Mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, cooperation 
in the disciplinary process, and imposition of other penalties or sanctions—
namely, Schuler’s conviction, sentence, and fine.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (f). 
{¶ 11} The panel also addressed whether Schuler had fully acknowledged 
the wrongful nature of his conduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g).  In 
explaining the circumstance leading to his conviction, Schuler testified that the 
“genesis” of his crime was a bookkeeping oversight.  According to Schuler, he 
was part owner of a radio-telecommunications business that had been sold at 
some point in or prior to 2002.  As part of the sale agreement, Schuler was to 
receive three payments for his share of the business.  Schuler claims that he set up 
a system with his bookkeeper so that she would receive each payment and 
coordinate with Schuler’s accountant to ensure proper tax treatment of the sale 
proceeds. 
{¶ 12} Schuler testified that at the time the second payment was due, an 
officer of his company indicated that the payment would be wired and requested 
instructions for doing so.  Schuler e-mailed his bank for wiring instructions and 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
then forwarded the bank’s e-mailed instructions to the payer.  The instructions, 
however, directed that the money be wired into Schuler’s personal bank account, 
and therefore the $360,000 second payment was deposited into that account rather 
than sent to Schuler’s bookkeeper.  According to Schuler, because the second 
payment “didn’t get into [his] system” with the bookkeeper, it was not reported on 
his tax return.  Schuler also testified that he had met with his accountant once a 
quarter and that the accountant knew about Schuler’s sale of the business and had 
considered the tax consequences for him.  Nevertheless, because the second 
payment was deposited in Schuler’s personal bank account, Schuler claimed that 
the second payment “just got missed.” 
{¶ 13} In its report and recommendation, the panel acknowledged that 
Schuler took responsibility for signing the false tax return, but the panel 
nonetheless concluded that Schuler “seemed to blame the error on others.”  For 
example, the board noted that Schuler testified that one of the greatest lessons he 
had learned from the matter was that his choice of associates was “critically 
important.”  We accept the panel’s credibility determination regarding whether 
Schuler fully appreciated the wrongfulness of his misconduct.  “Unless the record 
weighs heavily against a hearing panel’s findings, we defer to the panel’s 
credibility determinations, inasmuch as the panel members saw and heard the 
witnesses firsthand.”  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 164, 
2006-Ohio-550, 842 N.E.2d 35, ¶ 24. 
Applicable precedent 
{¶ 14} In support of its recommended sanction, the board cites three 
recent cases in which we imposed indefinite suspensions for similar disciplinary-
rule violations involving felony tax-evasion convictions.  See Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Bennett, 124 Ohio St.3d 314, 2010-Ohio-313, 921 N.E.2d 1064 
(indefinitely suspending an attorney, with credit for time served under an interim 
felony suspension, for illegally structuring financial transactions in the amount of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
$124,300 to evade federal currency-reporting requirements); Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Smith, 128 Ohio St.3d 390, 2011-Ohio-957, 944 N.E.2d 1166 (indefinitely 
suspending an attorney, with credit for time served under an interim felony 
suspension, convicted of making false tax returns, conspiring to defraud the IRS, 
and corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede an IRS investigation); and 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Hunter, 130 Ohio St.3d 355, 2011-Ohio-5788, 958 N.E.2d 
567 (indefinitely suspending an attorney convicted of failing to report a cash 
payment of more than $10,000; the attorney also neglected two client matters and 
failed to properly account for funds in his client trust account). 
{¶ 15} Following this precedent, we agree with the board that an 
indefinite suspension with credit for time served is warranted here.  As the board 
concluded, there is no compelling reason to decline Schuler credit for the time he 
has served under his interim felony suspension, which has been in place since 
October 6, 2011. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 16} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 
we adopt the board’s recommended sanction.  Accordingly, Robert Carl Schuler 
is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio, with credit for time 
served under the interim felony suspension imposed on October 6, 2011.  Costs 
are taxed to Schuler. 
Judgment accordingly. 
PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KLATT, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, J., concur with the sanction but would not 
give credit for time served under the interim suspension. 
WILLIAM A. KLATT, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for 
KENNEDY, J. 
____________________ 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
Scott Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald M. Scheetz, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill and Ritter, Geoffrey Stern, and Jason Beehler, for 
respondent. 
_________________________