Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Moore

Citation: 2015-Ohio-2488

Docket Number: 2014-1737

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Moore, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2488.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-2488 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. MOORE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Moore, Slip Opinion  
No. 2015-Ohio-2488.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Engaging in illegal conduct—Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Knowingly 
making a false statement in connection with a disciplinary matter—Two-
year suspension with second year stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2014-1737—Submitted January 14, 2015—Decided June 25, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-015. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Rodger William Moore of Fort Mitchell, Kentucky, 
Attorney Registration No. 0074144, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
2001.  On March 19, 2014, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed an amended 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
four-count complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline.1  The complaint alleged that Moore had engaged in illegal acts that 
adversely reflected on his honesty and trustworthiness and engaged in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, by engaging in seven 
incidents of shoplifting—one in 2001 and six over a period of several months 
ending in March 2012—and by submitting false statements about those incidents 
during relator’s investigation.2 
{¶ 2} The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors and also agreed on the sanction they believed 
was appropriate.  A panel of the board conducted a hearing, where it heard 
testimony from Moore, three witnesses to the alleged misconduct, and three 
character witnesses.  The panel adopted the parties’ stipulations, found one 
additional aggravating factor and one additional mitigating factor, and accepted 
the parties’ recommendation that Moore be suspended from the practice of law for 
two years, with one year stayed on conditions.  The board adopted the panel’s 
report in its entirety.  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of 
law and agree that a two-year suspension with the second year stayed on 
conditions is the appropriate sanction for Moore’s misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The parties stipulated and the board found that in November 2001, 
Moore was arrested in Atlanta, Georgia, based on an allegation that he attempted 
to leave a Kroger store with 12 bottles of wine, worth $152, without paying for 
them.  He entered into an agreement that required him to complete 65 hours of 
community service and a nolle prosequi was subsequently entered in the matter. 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
2 Relator charged Moore with misconduct under the applicable Disciplinary Rules of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility for acts occurring before February 1, 2007, the effective date of the 
Rules of Professional Conduct, which superseded the Disciplinary Rules.  Acts occurring 
thereafter were charged as violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
{¶ 4} In March 2012, Moore was charged with theft by shoplifting after he 
scanned UPC codes that he had carried into a Kroger store in Cincinnati to 
purchase three bottles of expensive wine and a bottle of olive oil at a self-scan 
checkout register, reducing the price of the items purchased by $359.10.  He 
pleaded guilty to the charges and was permitted to enter a diversion program.  
Moore later admitted that he had used this method to steal expensive bottles of 
wine from the same store on five separate occasions prior to his arrest. 
{¶ 5} On the advice of counsel, Moore sent a letter to relator in July 2012 
to report the March 2012 shoplifting charge.  In that letter, he made false 
statements regarding the March 2012 incident, failed to disclose that he had used 
the same subterfuge a number of times in the months preceding that incident, and 
failed to disclose the 2001 charge.  He also attempted to mislead relator by 
making false statements and leaving out relevant information when relator 
interviewed him under oath in January 2013 and in his initial and supplemental 
responses in June and July 2014 to relator’s requests for admissions. 
{¶ 6} The parties stipulated and the board found that Moore’s conduct in 
2001 violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in illegal 
conduct involving moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 
that his later conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a) (prohibiting knowingly making 
a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter), 8.4(b) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness), and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  
The parties also stipulated and the board found that Moore’s conduct violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (now Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G)) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
neglecting or refusing to assist in a disciplinary investigation). 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Sanction 
{¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and 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).3  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated to one mitigating factor—the absence of a 
prior disciplinary record, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a)—and acknowledged 
that Moore would provide character evidence at the hearing from which the panel 
could find additional mitigating factors.  The board adopted the stipulated 
mitigating factor and found that other penalties or sanctions have been imposed 
for Moore’s conduct (i.e., community service, restitution, and participation in a 
diversion program).  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f). 
{¶ 9} The board noted that Moore provided several letters from 
acquaintances and presented the testimony of three witnesses at the disciplinary 
hearing to show evidence of his good character.  While the letters and the 
testimony of one witness provided evidence of that type, the testimony of the two 
other witnesses on cross-examination revealed that Moore had not been truthful 
with them about the full extent of his conduct.  Moore admitted, and the board 
found, that there was no reason for him to conceal that information from close 
friends except to avoid shame.  Based on his failure to disclose the details of the 
thefts to his close friends and his deliberate decision to withhold the information 
from his treating psychologist, the board found that Moore had been unwilling to 
accept responsibility for his misconduct, and it therefore accorded “very limited 
                                                 
3 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
mitigating weight to the character evidence presented.”  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(e). 
{¶ 10} As aggravating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found 
that Moore acted with a dishonest or selfish motive; engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct; engaged in multiple offenses; failed to cooperate in the disciplinary 
process; and submitted false evidence, made false statements, or engaged in other 
deceptive practices during the disciplinary process.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f).  In addition, the board found that Moore’s failure 
to make restitution to the Kroger store in Cincinnati until shortly before his 
disciplinary hearing qualified as an aggravating factor.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(i).  It also expressed concern that Moore could not explain why he had 
committed the thefts or why he chose to lie to relator when he knew that relator 
had proof that he was lying. 
{¶ 11} Consistent with the parties’ stipulations, the board recommends 
that we suspend Moore from the practice of law for two years, with one year 
stayed on the conditions that Moore (1) comply with the terms of his contract with 
the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), (2) provide relator and OLAP 
with evidence of regular counseling visits with his psychologist and periodic 
reports from that psychologist, and (3) commit no further misconduct.  The board 
further recommends that Moore be required to petition this court for reinstatement 
in accordance with the more rigorous requirements of the Supreme Court Rules 
for the Government of the Bar of Ohio that govern the reinstatement of 
indefinitely suspended attorneys and submit documentation from a qualified 
medical professional selected by relator, other than his treating psychologist, 
stating that Moore is capable of returning to the competent, ethical, and 
professional practice of law.  The board believed that these conditions would 
force Moore to examine and deal with the underlying causes of his self-
destructive behavior if he desires to resume the practice of law. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
{¶ 12} Of the cases cited by the board in support of its recommended 
sanction, we find Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart, 84 Ohio St.3d 7, 701 N.E.2d 686 
(1998), and Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Fidler, 83 Ohio St.3d 396, 700 N.E.2d 323 
(1998), to be most instructive. 
{¶ 13} In Lockhart, an attorney was twice convicted for shoplifting 
incidents.  The first incident resulted in a petty-theft conviction and ten-day jail 
sentence, and after pleading guilty to shoplifting in the second matter, Lockhart 
was fined $1,000 and placed on probation for one year.  She was also convicted of 
tampering with records after she signed out a document from her case record of 
the first incident from the office of the municipal court clerk, left the document 
with the trial court bailiff when she was finished with it, and then attempted to 
conceal that she had signed out the document by whiting out her signature on the 
clerk’s record log.  Id. at 8.  The board recommended that Lockhart be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, but citing her efforts to 
rehabilitate herself from depression, self-destructive behavior, and low self-
esteem, we imposed a two-year suspension, with the second year stayed on 
conditions that included her submission to a complete psychiatric examination to 
determine whether she was fit to resume the practice of law.  Id. at 8-9. 
{¶ 14} In Fidler, an attorney was arrested in 1985 for taking several 
compact discs from a store and was arrested again in 1996 for the same conduct.  
He pleaded guilty to petty theft in the first case and pleaded no contest to 
disorderly conduct in the second.  He reported his 1996 conviction to the 
Cincinnati Bar Association, but when he was interviewed by the bar association 
about that conviction, he specifically denied that he had stolen anything in the 
past—though he eventually disclosed his 1985 conviction.  Fidler presented 
evidence that he was under great personal stress at the time of the thefts and 
submitted 16 character letters from lawyers and judges.  Id. at 396-397.  We 
imposed an 18-month suspension, with one year stayed pending the successful 
January Term, 2015 
 
7
completion of a one-year period of probation and appropriate counseling to 
address the issues underlying Fidler’s misconduct.  Id. at 397. 
{¶ 15} Having considered Moore’s misconduct, the aggravating and 
mitigating factors present, and the sanctions we have imposed for comparable 
misconduct, we agree that a two-year suspension with one year stayed on the 
conditions recommended by relator is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
{¶ 16} Accordingly, Rodger William Moore is suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for two years with the second year stayed on the 
conditions that he (1) comply with the terms of his contract with OLAP, (2) 
provide relator and OLAP with evidence of regular counseling visits with his 
psychologist and periodic reports from that psychologist, and (3) commit no 
further misconduct.  In order to resume the practice of law, Moore also must 
petition this court for reinstatement in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(25) and 
must submit documentation from a qualified medical professional selected by 
relator, other than his treating psychologist, stating that he is capable of returning 
to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.  Costs are taxed to 
Moore. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
Laura A. Abrams and Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator. 
James E. Arnold & Associates, L.P.A., and Alvin E. Matthews Jr., for 
respondent. 
_________________________