Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Petroff

Citation: 1999-Ohio-400

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-04-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. PETROFF. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Petroff (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with full credit for time 
served — Conviction of attempting to evade federal income taxes. 
(No. 98-2641 — Submitted January 27, 1999 — Decided April 28, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-32. 
 
On September 30, 1997, respondent, Mark Gregory Petroff of Elyria, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0019634, pled guilty to a charge of attempting to evade 
federal income taxes in violation of Section 7201 et seq., Title 26, U.S.Code.  
Respondent was sentenced to four months of home detention, placed on two years 
of probation, and ordered to pay restitution.  On March 19, 1998, we imposed on 
respondent an interim suspension from the practice of law.  In re Petroff (1998), 81 
Ohio St.3d 1484, 691 N.E.2d 685. 
 
On June 8, 1998, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent’s conduct violated several Disciplinary Rules.  After 
respondent answered, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts and a further 
stipulation that the conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct involving 
moral turpitude), (4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), and (6) (conduct adversely reflecting upon the attorney’s 
ability to practice law).  The parties also stipulated that respondent cooperated fully 
with relator’s investigation; that none of his conduct had any impact on his clients 
and did not arise from the representation of his clients; and that accepting full 
responsibility, respondent had expressed remorse both in the disciplinary 
proceeding and before the United States District Court. 
 
A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”) considered the matter.  The panel found the facts as 
 
2
stipulated and agreed that respondent had violated the three Disciplinary Rules.  
The panel received testimonial letters regarding respondent’s legal ability and 
professionalism and recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice 
of law for one year, with full credit given for the time already served under our 
previous interim suspension of March 19, 1998.  The board adopted the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna M. Anelli, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Richard S. Koblentz and Peter A. Russell, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. Dayton 
Bar Assn. v. Bart (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 538, 687 N.E.2d 681, and Dayton Bar 
Assn. v. Seall (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 280, 690 N.E.2d 1271, were cases involving 
facts similar to these.  In those cases we imposed a one-year suspension with full 
credit for time served under the interim suspension.  We adopt the board’s 
recommendation that we impose the same sanction in this case.  Respondent is 
hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year with full credit for time 
served.  Cost are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.