Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Farrell

Citation: 2011-Ohio-2879

Docket Number: 20101951

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Farrell, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-2879.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-2879 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. FARRELL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Farrell, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-
2879.] 
Attorney — Misconduct — Engaging in an illegal act that reflects adversely on 
the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness — Conduct adversely reflecting on 
fitness to practice law — Permanent disbarment. 
(No. 2010-1951 — Submitted February 15, 2011 — Decided June 21, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-002. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, William I. Farrell of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0043635, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1989. 
{¶ 2} On March 26, 2008, we suspended respondent from the practice of 
law for two years, with the second year stayed on conditions, based on findings 
that he had fabricated documents, forged his wife’s signature to a power of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
attorney, lied to secure the notarization of the power of attorney, and then used the 
forged document to obtain credit.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Farrell, 119 Ohio St.3d 
529, 2008-Ohio-4540, 895 N.E.2d 800, ¶ 6-10, 23. 
{¶ 3} On January 9 and 16, 2008, respondent’s counsel informed relator 
that respondent had failed to timely file federal, state, or local income tax returns 
or pay the corresponding tax liabilities for himself or his former wife for the years 
2001 through 2005.  He also reported that respondent had failed to file his 
individual tax returns or pay the corresponding tax liability for 2006.  The first of 
these revelations came less than three weeks after the Board of Commissioners 
had certified its report to this court in respondent’s first disciplinary matter. 
{¶ 4} On February 17, 2009, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a 
complaint alleging that respondent had (1) failed to file tax returns or pay the 
corresponding tax liabilities for the tax years 2001-2005, (2) filed a false affidavit 
with the Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court in December 2007 stating 
that he had timely filed those returns and paid the corresponding taxes for himself 
and his wife, and (3) failed to file his 2006 individual income tax returns or pay 
any corresponding tax liability as required by the couple’s divorce decree. 
{¶ 5} Although the panel recognized that “respondent acted with a 
premeditated intent to deceive the Domestic Relations Court, with extraordinary 
self interest, and in utter disregard for his ethical obligations as an attorney and 
officer of the court,” two of the three members recommended that respondent be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  Citing respondent’s systematic 
manipulation of the disciplinary process to avoid the consequences of his 
misconduct, the third member of the panel recommended that he be permanently 
disbarred.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct but 
adopted the dissenting panel member’s recommendation that respondent be 
permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
{¶ 6} Respondent objects to the recommended sanction, arguing that our 
precedent supports, at most, the indefinite suspension recommended by a majority 
of the panel.  For the reasons that follow, we overrule respondent’s objection, 
adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct, and permanently disbar 
respondent from the practice of law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 7} Respondent’s misconduct began in 2002 when he stopped filing 
income tax returns and making regular estimated payments toward his income tax 
liability.  In mid-2004, two years after his tax violations began, respondent’s wife 
wanted to reduce her work schedule and move to a more modest home so that she 
could stay home with their daughter.  Respondent testified that he felt that his 
position as a husband and father was threatened by his wife’s request and that he 
believed the marriage was foundering, and he claimed that his panic led him into 
a pattern of deception. 
{¶ 8} Rather than address the issues in his marriage, respondent devised 
a scheme to convince his wife that he had resigned his position with his firm to 
accept more lucrative employment, thus buying time for his practice to become 
more lucrative.  In furtherance of this scheme, respondent fabricated letters from 
two phantom employers, indicating that each had hired him for a higher salary, a 
bigger bonus, and better benefits.  In reliance on the second of these purported job 
offers, respondent’s wife resigned her position as a senior associate with a 
Cincinnati law firm. 
{¶ 9} Unable to sustain the financial burdens arising from his deception, 
respondent forged his wife’s signature to a power of attorney, convinced another 
attorney to notarize the forged signature, and unbeknownst to his wife, used the 
power of attorney to obtain a $50,000 extension of the couple’s line of credit.  
When his wife discovered documents related to the increased line of credit, 
respondent fabricated three letters from bank executives explaining that the bank 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
had erred.  He also stopped delivery of mail to his home and fabricated a letter 
from the United States Postal Service stating that no mail had been withheld from 
delivery.  Respondent eventually informed his wife about the fictitious offers of 
employment, the forged power of attorney that he had used to extend the marital 
line of credit, and his efforts to conceal these deceptions.  The couple divorced in 
December 2006. 
{¶ 10} At the November 15, 2007 panel hearing addressing respondent’s 
fraud, relator asked respondent, “At one time do you recall your wife questioning 
you about some unpaid income taxes?”  Respondent replied, “She advised me that 
she received a letter from the IRS addressed to her that said that they did not have 
copies of returns, but did not mention – I’m not aware of anything regarding 
unpaid taxes.”  In light of respondent’s admission that he did not file tax returns 
or pay taxes for the 2001 through 2006 tax years, this testimony was patently 
false. 
{¶ 11} Just one month after giving this false testimony at his disciplinary 
hearing, respondent filed an affidavit in response to a postdecree contempt motion 
filed in his domestic-relations case.  The affidavit stated that he had prepared and 
filed joint federal, state, and local income tax returns and had paid the 
corresponding tax liabilities in full for the 1989 through 2005 tax years.  
Respondent admitted that he knew these averments were false when he made 
them but explained that he did not want to risk being jailed for contempt if he 
failed to file an affidavit or risk the imposition of a harsher sanction in his 
pending disciplinary matter if the truth came out. 
{¶ 12} When respondent’s domestic-relations counsel discovered that the 
affidavit was false, he advised respondent to report his conduct to relator.  And in 
an amended answer to relator’s complaint, respondent admitted each allegation 
set forth in relator’s complaint and acknowledged that his conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness), (c) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), (d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), and (h) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 
law). 
{¶ 13} Based upon respondent’s admissions of fact and misconduct, and 
upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel and board found that 
respondent has violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), (c), (d), and (h).  We adopt these 
findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 14} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
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 Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 15} As aggravating factors, the panel found that respondent has a prior 
disciplinary record and that his current ethical violations occurred during that 
earlier disciplinary process.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a).  The board also 
found that he engaged in a pattern of misconduct, submitted false evidence and 
made false statements about his outstanding tax liabilities in his prior disciplinary 
case and in his domestic-relations proceeding, and failed to acknowledge the 
wrongful nature of his conduct until confronted by his attorney.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (f), and (g).  We find that respondent also acted with a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
dishonest or selfish motive, disregarded his ethical obligations as an attorney and 
officer of this court, and risked his wife’s reputation, credit, and career in an effort 
to avoid the consequences of his own actions.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  
We also find that he engaged in multiple offenses over a period of years.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d). 
{¶ 16} As mitigating factors, the panel found that respondent had 
cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings and eventually admitted each of the 
alleged rule violations.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c) and (d). 
{¶ 17} The panel, however, discounted the testimony of three of 
respondent’s law-school classmates who testified to his good character, two of 
whom claimed that they would continue to refer clients to him despite his 
disciplinary record.  The panel acknowledged respondent’s selfless efforts to 
obtain workers’ compensation benefits for one of the witnesses, who had been in 
an automobile accident that left him a quadriplegic.  But it observed that he began 
the pattern of tax-law violations that gave rise to this disciplinary proceeding 
while he was providing free legal advice to his friend. 
{¶ 18} In his prior disciplinary proceeding, respondent acknowledged that 
he had suffered from a depressive disorder, but he conceded that his depression 
did not contribute to his misconduct in that case.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Farrell, 
119 Ohio St.3d 529, 2008-Ohio-4540, 895 N.E.2d 800, ¶ 18.  Here, however, he 
testified that his depression, though not a cause, was a contributing factor to all of 
his misconduct, and he sought to have it considered as a mitigating factor. 
{¶ 19} The social worker who began treating respondent in 2006 testified 
that respondent suffered from major depression.  He considered respondent’s 
filing of the false tax affidavit as a continuation of the conduct at issue in the 
earlier disciplinary proceeding and characterized the misconduct as occurring in 
“a very encapsulated part” of respondent’s life involving his marriage and as 
unrelated to his clients or his career.  While the social worker believed that 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
respondent’s depression was causally related to the misconduct at issue, he stated 
that respondent took responsibility for his problems and expressed tremendous 
guilt and shame for his actions.  He also expressed his belief that respondent 
would be able to return to the ethical practice of law.  The panel did not find the 
social worker’s testimony to be persuasive. 
{¶ 20} The board-certified psychiatrist who performed an independent 
medical examination of respondent confirmed that he had suffered from a major 
depressive disorder.  But based upon respondent’s self-reported history and the 
documentation in his clinical records, the psychiatrist found that his depression 
had been in remission since early 2007.  Therefore, the independent psychiatrist 
concluded that respondent’s depression was not causally related to the misconduct 
that occurred in late 2007. 
{¶ 21} The panel found the testimony of the independent psychiatrist to be 
more persuasive than that of respondent’s treating social worker.  Indeed, 
observing that respondent attempts to attribute his misconduct to his panic – over 
his wife’s discovery of his deception in the first case and over the potential loss of 
a lenient sanction in the second – the panel found “his mental state to be nothing 
less than a carefully crafted effort to deceive” and accorded it no mitigating effect.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶ 22} The panel likewise rejected respondent’s claims that he had 
reported his conduct, observing that in each instance, he made his report only 
after his misdeeds had been discovered.  Finding that respondent had engaged in a 
six-year pattern of pathological lying and deceptive conduct, acted with a 
premeditated intent to deceive the domestic-relations court, and submitted false 
testimony to another panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline, which serves as an arm of this court, the panel rejected respondent’s 
claims that his conduct had no bearing on his ethical obligations as an attorney. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 23} Finding that this court has imposed sanctions ranging from a six-
month suspension to an indefinite suspension for what they perceived as 
comparable conduct, two of the panel members were reluctant to permanently 
disbar respondent as relator requested.  But they acknowledged that they could 
not confidently establish a timeframe in which respondent could return to the 
ethical practice of law and, therefore, recommended that he be indefinitely 
suspended after serving the full suspension imposed by this court in 2008.  The 
majority of the panel also conditioned any future reinstatement on the submission 
of evidence that respondent repay the $50,000 loan that he fraudulently obtained, 
be current on all tax and child-support obligations, and commit no further 
misconduct. 
{¶ 24} Citing his six-year pattern of deception and systematic 
manipulation of the disciplinary process to avoid the consequences of his 
misconduct, the third panel member dissented, arguing that respondent’s conduct 
warranted permanent disbarment.  The board adopted the findings of fact and 
misconduct of the panel but recommends that we permanently disbar respondent. 
{¶ 25} Respondent objects to the recommended sanction of permanent 
disbarment and argues that at most, our precedent supports the imposition of an 
indefinite suspension.  In support of this argument, he cites a number of cases 
imposing far more lenient sanctions on attorneys who failed to file their personal 
income tax returns. 
{¶ 26} In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Abood, 104 Ohio St.3d 655, 2004-Ohio-
7015, 821 N.E.2d 560, ¶ 3, an attorney failed to either timely file his federal 
income tax returns or pay the tax owed for multiple years over a 13-year period 
due to financial difficulties.  And on one occasion, he placed personal funds into 
his client trust account to avoid seizure by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).  
He pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of failure to pay income taxes and 
January Term, 2011 
9 
 
was sentenced to consecutive eight-month prison terms for the offenses.  Id. at ¶ 
5. 
{¶ 27} In Abood, we noted the presence of many mitigating factors, 
including the respondent’s lack of a prior disciplinary record, his full cooperation 
with the IRS and disciplinary investigations, his reputation for honesty, integrity 
and a good work ethic, his demonstration of remorse, the imposition of a 
substantial federal prison term, and the fact that his misconduct was of a financial 
nature that did not involve his practice or his capacity as an attorney.  Id. at ¶ 9-
11.  Considering the duration of the respondent’s conduct as an aggravating 
circumstance, however, we imposed a one-year suspension and stayed the final 
six months on conditions.  Id. at ¶ 19-20. 
{¶ 28} In Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Smith, 102 Ohio St.3d 10, 2004-Ohio-
1582, 806 N.E.2d 495, ¶ 12, we imposed a six-month conditionally stayed 
suspension for an attorney who had settled a claim for her own malpractice 
without advising the client to seek independent counsel, failed to promptly return 
unearned fees to a client, and failed to file income tax returns for nine years.  
There were no aggravating factors present, but mitigating factors included 
respondent’s lack of prior discipline, her devotion of her practice to low- and 
moderate-income clients, her genuine efforts to make restitution to her clients, her 
acceptance of responsibility for her actions and demonstration of remorse, and her 
evidence of her good character and integrity.  Id. at ¶ 10. 
{¶ 29} In Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Freedman, 107 Ohio St.3d 25, 
2005-Ohio-5831, 836 N.E.2d 559, ¶ 10, 19, we imposed a one-year suspension 
for an attorney who had not filed tax returns for at least ten years and owed 
approximately $200,000 in back taxes.  He also harmed two clients by neglecting 
their legal matters and counseled one of them to hide her car from her creditors.  
Id. at ¶ 4-9.  Mitigating factors included the absence of any prior disciplinary 
record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, full and free disclosure to the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
panel and a cooperative attitude during the proceedings, and respondent’s good 
character and reputation among magistrates, attorneys, clients, and friends.  Id. at 
¶ 13.  Freedman also successfully demonstrated that his diagnosed depression was 
causally related to his misconduct and that he had completed a sustained period of 
successful treatment, and his counselor testified that he was capable of providing 
ethical and professional service to his clients.  Id. at ¶ 14. 
{¶ 30} We have also imposed a one-year conditionally stayed suspension 
for an attorney who had accepted cocaine as a legal fee from a client and had 
failed to file personal income tax returns for five years.  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. 
v. Lazzaro, 98 Ohio St.3d 509, 2003-Ohio-2150, 787 N.E.2d 1182, ¶ 2, 7.  
Notably, in that case, the attorney had no prior discipline and his diagnosed 
depressive disorder and cocaine dependence qualified as a mitigating 
circumstance pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).  Id. at ¶ 3. 
{¶ 31} And in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Patterson, 95 Ohio St.3d 502, 2002-
Ohio-2487, 769 N.E.2d 826, ¶ 4-7, we imposed a one-year suspension with credit 
for time served for an attorney who had pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor 
charges of failing to file federal income tax returns and one charge of driving 
while intoxicated, and who owed more than $45,000 in back child support.  As 
mitigating factors, the parties stipulated and we found that the attorney’s 
violations did not directly relate to the practice of law and did not adversely affect 
his clients or the judicial system and that the attorney was criminally punished for 
his conduct. 
{¶ 32} These cases, however, are distinguishable from the facts of 
respondent’s case.  In four of the five cases, the attorneys did not have a prior 
disciplinary record, while respondent’s pattern of misconduct continued 
throughout his prior disciplinary proceeding.  Abood served a prison term for his 
offenses, and Patterson was placed on probation by the federal court, while 
respondent has not faced any criminal charges for his conduct.  Freedman and 
January Term, 2011 
11 
 
Lazzaro successfully demonstrated that their mental conditions contributed to 
their misconduct and satisfied the other requirements of BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(g) for those conditions to be considered in mitigation, while 
respondent’s depression appears to be the result, rather than the cause, of his 
misconduct. 
{¶ 33} Respondent’s submission of a false affidavit in his domestic 
proceeding and his false testimony in his prior disciplinary proceeding were 
prejudicial to the administration of justice and adversely reflected upon his fitness 
to practice law.  His actions impaired this court’s ability to determine the full 
scope of his misconduct and craft an appropriate sanction to protect the public.  
And while Abood and Smith expressed genuine remorse for their actions, 
respondent continued to spin his web of lies even as he professed his remorse in 
his first disciplinary action and as he continues to seek credit for reporting his 
misconduct. 
{¶ 34} We have permanently disbarred attorneys who have demonstrated 
a proclivity for lying and deceit.  In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Deaton, 102 Ohio 
St.3d 19, 2004-Ohio-1587, 806 N.E.2d 503, ¶ 3-22, an attorney had repeatedly 
lied and deceived his clients and his firm to cover up his neglect of client matters.  
Observing that the attorney had deliberately concealed his neglect to protect his 
personal interests, and adopting a master commissioner’s finding that the attorney 
was predisposed to dishonesty and lacking in integrity, we concluded that an 
indefinite suspension was too lenient.  Id. at ¶ 27,  30.  Therefore, we permanently 
disbarred the attorney.  Id. at ¶ 32. 
{¶ 35} Similarly, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Manogg (1996), 74 Ohio 
St.3d 213, 214-216, 658 N.E.2d 257,  we permanently disbarred an attorney who 
had been convicted of two felony counts of using false Social Security numbers, 
created several aliases, and made up fake property deeds and appraisals to obtain 
fraudulent mortgage loans.  In doing so, we stated that we were “most troubled * 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
* * by respondent’s propensity to scheme and deceive without any moral 
appreciation for the lies he tells or the fraud he perpetrates.”  Id. at 217.  And in 
Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kafantaris, 121 Ohio St.3d 387, 2009-Ohio-1389, 904 
N.E.2d 875, ¶ 6-7, 15, we found that permanent disbarment was the only 
appropriate sanction for an attorney who, among other things, submitted an 
affidavit to this court falsely stating that he had complied with the terms of a 
previous suspension order.  Likewise, we agree that respondent’s pattern of lying 
and deceit strongly suggests that he lacks the ability to conform his behavior to 
the ethical standards incumbent upon attorneys in this state. 
{¶ 36} Accordingly, respondent is permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Kevin P. Roberts and Ernest F. McAdams Jr., for relator. 
William I. Farrell, pro se. 
______________________