Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore

Citation: 2017-Ohio-883

Docket Number: 2016-1160

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-03-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-883.] 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-883 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MOORE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore, Slip Opinion No.  
2017-Ohio-883.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Knowingly making a false statement to a tribunal—
Public reprimand. 
(No. 2016-1160—January 11, 2017—Decided March 15, 2017.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2016-003. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Amy Michelle Moore, of Westerville, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0077647, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2004. 
{¶ 2} In a June 8, 2016 second amended complaint, relator, disciplinary 
counsel, alleged that Moore had violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal) by 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
signing a client’s name to an affidavit without indicating that the signature was not 
the client’s or that she had signed the client’s name with the client’s authorization, 
notarizing that signature as the client’s, and then filing it in court.  The parties 
submitted joint stipulations in which Moore admitted to the charged misconduct 
and the parties agreed that five mitigating factors and no aggravating factors are 
present.  The parties jointly recommended that Moore be publicly reprimanded for 
her misconduct and moved the panel to waive the hearing in this matter. 
{¶ 3} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct granted the parties’ 
motion to waive the hearing and adopted the parties’ stipulations and recommended 
sanction.  The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety.  We adopt the board’s 
report and publicly reprimand Moore for her misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulated and the board found that in April 2013, Beth 
Cochran hired Moore to represent her in a child-custody matter involving 
Cochran’s granddaughter.  Cochran told Moore that she had concerns about the 
child’s safety while she was in the care of her parents.  Believing the situation 
Cochran described was serious and urgent, Moore prepared a motion for emergency 
custody and an affidavit supporting the motion.  Moore signed Cochran’s name to 
the affidavit without indicating either that the signature was not Cochran’s or that 
she had signed Cochran’s name with Cochran’s authorization.  She then notarized 
her signing of Cochran’s name, falsely representing that it had been “sworn to and 
subscribed in” her presence by Cochran.  Moore filed the motion and affidavit in 
the Knox County Juvenile Court on May 1, 2013.  The parties stipulated and the 
board found that by engaging in this conduct, Moore knowingly made a false 
statement of fact or law to a tribunal in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1).  We 
adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
 
 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
Sanction 
{¶ 5} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 6} The parties stipulated and the board found that no aggravating factors 
are present.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B).  They agreed that the applicable mitigating 
factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest 
or selfish motive, Moore’s full and free disclosure of her actions, her 
acknowledgment of her misconduct, her cooperative attitude in the disciplinary 
proceedings, and her good character and reputation—as demonstrated by 18 
character letters from current and former judges and magistrates, colleagues, and 
clients.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (2), (4), and (5). 
{¶ 7} The board adopted the parties’ joint recommendation that Moore be 
publicly reprimanded for her misconduct.  In support of this sanction, the parties 
and the board noted that we have publicly reprimanded attorneys for similar acts of 
misconduct—including one case in which the attorney engaged in multiple acts of 
similar misconduct and another in which the attorney also encouraged her client to 
lie to the court about who had signed the client’s name on the affidavit.  See 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Mezacapa, 101 Ohio St.3d 156, 2004-Ohio-302, 803 
N.E.2d 397 (publicly reprimanding an attorney who, with the permission of his 
client, signed the client’s name to an affidavit and notarized the signature as the 
client’s own without indicating that he had signed it on the client’s behalf); 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Flowers, 139 Ohio St.3d 338, 2014-Ohio-2123, 11 N.E.3d 
1174 (publicly reprimanding an attorney who, on two separate occasions and with 
her client’s permission, signed her client’s name to five affidavits and then 
improperly notarized the client’s purported signatures); Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Wilson, 142 Ohio St.3d 439, 2014-Ohio-5487, 32 N.E.3d 426 (publicly 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
reprimanding an attorney who signed the name of her granddaughter’s mother to 
an affidavit without noting that she had signed it with the affiant’s authorization, 
filed it in court, and encouraged the affiant to claim the signature as her own). 
{¶ 8} Having considered Moore’s misconduct, the applicable aggravating 
and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct, we 
agree that the appropriate sanction in this case is a public reprimand. 
{¶ 9} Accordingly, Amy Michelle Moore is hereby publicly reprimanded 
for violating Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1).  Costs are taxed to Moore. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, 
and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Jennifer A. Bondurant, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Charles J. Kettlewell, L.L.C., and Charles J. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
_________________