Case Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Melnick

Citation: 2005-Ohio-6265

Docket Number: 20051157

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-12-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Melnick, 107 Ohio St.3d 240, 2005-Ohio-6265.] 
 
 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MELNICK. 
[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Melnick, 
 107 Ohio St.3d 240, 2005-Ohio-6265.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Notarizing a false jurat — Conduct involving 
fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation — Public reprimand. 
(No. 2005-1157 — Submitted August 23, 2005 — Decided December 14, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-066. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, 
Robert 
Melnick 
of 
Salem, 
Ohio, 
Attorney 
Registration No. 0014788, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1983. 
{¶ 2} On December 6, 2004, relator, Mahoning County Bar Association, 
charged that respondent had notarized three affiants’ signatures without having 
witnessed them and had thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
fraud, 
deceit, 
dishonesty, 
or 
misrepresentation).  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline heard the cause and, based on the parties’ stipulations and other 
evidence, found the DR 1-102(A)(4) violation and recommended that respondent 
be publicly reprimanded.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In 2003, respondent represented Prudential Property and Casualty 
Insurance Company in a subrogation lawsuit against Ohio Edison.  The suit 
alleged that Ohio Edison employees had caused a residential fire by negligently 
repairing a fallen power line. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} Respondent hired a private investigator to interview residents of 
the neighborhood where the electrical line fell.  The investigator gave respondent 
a written report of his investigation, including the investigator’s discussions with 
the neighborhood residents.  With this information, respondent prepared affidavits 
for several residents to sign, planning to file the affidavits as part of his response 
to Ohio Edison’s motion for summary judgment. 
{¶ 5} Respondent is a reserve officer in the Army Judge Advocate 
General Corps and was at this time on orders to leave for Germany in advance of 
the war on Iraq.  With time running out before his deployment, respondent 
instructed Louis Woolley, the owner of the fire-damaged dwelling and 
Prudential’s insured, to circulate the affidavits for the corresponding residents’ 
review.  Woolley circulated the affidavits for review; however, he also obtained 
signatures on three affidavits. 
{¶ 6} Within days after he returned from Germany, respondent was 
ordered to go to Fort Belvoir, Virginia, as part of his military duties.  Again 
because of his pressing military commitment and also because he had known 
Woolley for some time, respondent trusted Woolley’s assurances that the 
signatures on the affidavits were authentic.  Respondent then notarized the 
signatures, although he had not complied with the jurat representation that the 
signatures were sworn to and subscribed in his presence. 
{¶ 7} Within days, respondent spoke with each affiant in person to 
confirm that his or her signature was authentic.  Respondent then filed the 
affidavits in court as planned. 
{¶ 8} During their depositions in May 2003, the three affiants advised 
counsel for Ohio Edison that respondent had not actually witnessed their 
signatures when they signed their affidavits and that only Woolley had been 
present.  Some time thereafter, respondent dismissed the Ohio Edison suit without 
January Term, 2005 
3 
prejudice for reasons unrelated to the false notarization jurat.  He refiled the 
action in October 2003. 
{¶ 9} In May 2004, Ohio Edison’s attorney filed the grievance 
underlying relator’s complaint while Prudential’s suit against Ohio Edison was 
still pending. 
{¶ 10} From this evidence, the board adopted the panel’s findings that 
respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) by falsely stating in his notary’s jurat 
that the three affiants had appeared before him and signed their affidavits. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel and 
board considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case and 
found nothing that weighed in favor of a sanction more onerous than the proposed 
public reprimand.  See Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing 
Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline.  The board did, however, note the harm caused to the 
perception that the official act of a notary public is worthy of the public’s trust. 
{¶ 12} In mitigation, the board found that respondent had no prior 
disciplinary record and had cooperated fully during the disciplinary proceedings.  
Moreover, respondent submitted many letters extolling his good character and 
professional reputation. 
{¶ 13} The board also found mitigating that respondent had not acted in 
self-interest and had tried to rectify his wrongdoing by obtaining confirmation 
that the affiants’ signatures were genuine.  The board also noted, however, that 
though respondent’s efforts may have been sufficient to overcome an objection in 
court to the filed affidavits, the fact of the falsified notary’s jurat remained 
unchanged. 
{¶ 14} Relator advocated the public reprimand.  Respondent urged a 
dismissal, arguing that he had cured his violation of the Disciplinary Rule.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Consistent with the panel’s report, the board recommended that respondent be 
publicly reprimanded.  Respondent has not objected to the board’s report. 
Review 
{¶ 15} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and that a 
public reprimand is warranted. 
{¶ 16} In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dougherty, 105 Ohio St.3d 307, 2005-
Ohio-1825, 825 N.E.2d 1094, we publicly reprimanded a lawyer for avoiding the 
requirements of a notary jurat for her convenience.  Respondent committed this 
infraction several times, but he also tried to promptly right each of the wrongs he 
committed.  We find this and his lack of a disciplinary record, his apparent good 
character and reputation, and his cooperation mitigating enough to avoid any 
suspension of his license to practice. 
{¶ 17} Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded for his violation of 
DR 1-102(A)(4).  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Comstock, Springer & Wilson, Co., L.P.A., David C. Comstock Jr., and 
Ronald E. Slipski, for relator. 
 
Guarnieri & Secrest, P.L.L., and Michael D. Rossi, for respondent. 
______________________