Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Mbakpuo

Citation: 2002-Ohio-7087

Docket Number: 20021135

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-12-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mbakpuo, 98 Ohio St.3d 177, 2002-Ohio-7087.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MBAKPUO. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mbakpuo, 98 Ohio St.3d 177, 2002-Ohio-
7087.] 
Attorney at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Unauthorized 
practice of law in Maryland while Ohio license under indefinite 
suspension — Misrepresenting on letterhead professional associations — 
Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 2002-1135 — Submitted August 27, 2002 — Decided December 26, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-63. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo of Bowie, Maryland, 
Attorney Registration No. 0052019, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio 
on May 20, 1991.  In Disciplinary Counsel v. Mbakpuo (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 
292, 652 N.E.2d 976, we suspended respondent’s license to practice law 
indefinitely, effective August 23, 1995, after finding that he had committed nine 
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and had failed to cooperate 
in the investigation of that misconduct.  We determined that, among other 
misconduct, respondent had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by 
appearing before courts in Maryland and the District of Columbia while not 
licensed to practice in those jurisdictions.  We also found that respondent had 
represented on professional letterhead that he was associated with attorneys and 
others with whom he had no formal professional association. 
{¶2} 
Following his indefinite suspension in Ohio, respondent remained 
admitted to the practice of law in a federal district court in Maryland.  However, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
on September 20, 1995, respondent was disbarred by that court.  Since that date, 
respondent has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law in any 
state or federal court. 
{¶3} 
On June 28, 1999, respondent filed a petition for reinstatement to 
the practice of law in Ohio.  While investigating respondent’s fitness for 
reinstatement, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, learned that respondent had engaged 
in the unauthorized practice of law in Maryland while his Ohio license was under 
suspension.  In fact, the state of Maryland indicted respondent in 1997 for 
representing clients without a license, theft of client fees, and misrepresenting 
himself as licensed to practice in that state.  Respondent had also created and used 
professional letterhead that falsely showed him to be associated with other 
attorneys.  We denied respondent’s petition for reinstatement on May 23, 2000.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Mbakpuo (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 1218, 729 N.E.2d 1191. 
{¶4} 
Based upon the information discovered while investigating 
respondent’s reinstatement petition, relator initiated an investigation into 
respondent’s alleged misconduct occurring after his 1995 suspension.  On June 
11, 2001, relator filed a complaint charging respondent with additional violations 
of the Code of Professional Responsibility during 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997.  A 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”) 
heard the cause, considered the evidence submitted, and made relevant findings. 
{¶5} 
In relation to count one, the panel found that respondent had 
represented clients in a jurisdiction in which he was not authorized to practice.  
Professional correspondence generated by respondent and his guilty pleas to two 
counts of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Montgomery County, 
Maryland, showed that respondent had wrongfully held himself out as a licensed 
attorney in Maryland and had illegally represented clients and accepted fees.  
Respondent also admitted in testimony to practicing law while his license was 
suspended. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
{¶6} 
In regard to counts two, three, and four of the complaint, the 
evidence established that while he had no authority to practice law in any 
jurisdiction, respondent had several times created and used professional 
letterhead, purportedly of a law office in Silver Spring, Maryland.  In June 1995, 
while disciplinary proceedings were pending and thereafter, respondent used 
letterhead with the firm name of “Beatty, Lewis, Mbakpuo & Associates, 
Attorneys at Law.”  The letterhead listed the names of Rufus Beatty, Jerry L. 
Lewis, C. Victor Mbakpuo, Len Henderson, Johann Richter, MS., Ph.D., and 
Peter Njang, LLM., and represented that all were members of the same firm and 
engaged in “Domestic & International Practice.”  Moreover, in June 1997, when 
he was not authorized to practice law in any state or federal court, respondent 
used similar letterhead indicating that he was authorized to practice law and again 
holding himself out as a partner in the law firm of “Beatty, Lewis, Mbakpuo & 
Associates, Attorneys at Law.” 
{¶7} 
In depositions, Beatty, Lewis, Njang, and Richter testified that they 
were never members of any law firm with respondent, nor had they known that 
respondent had listed their names on office letterhead.  The panel found that 
Beatty, Lewis, Njang, and Richter were never in partnership or associated with 
respondent and had never consented to respondent’s use of their names. 
{¶8} 
Based on the preceding, the panel determined that respondent had 
failed to indicate on his professional correspondence that he was not admitted to 
practice law in Maryland where his office was purportedly located and had 
therefore falsely represented to the public and to his clients that he was authorized 
to practice law in this jurisdiction.  The panel further determined that respondent 
had represented to the public and to his clients that he was a partner in a law firm 
that did not, in fact, exist. 
{¶9} 
The panel concluded that, by practicing law in a jurisdiction where 
he was not licensed, by representing clients and accepting fees from them without 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
a valid license, and by misrepresenting himself to the public as licensed to 
practice law while not licensed and while his Ohio license was suspended, 
respondent had violated DR 3-101(B) (practicing law in violation of the 
regulations of that jurisdiction),1 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct 
involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct 
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The panel 
further determined that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) by repeatedly 
representing on professional letterhead that he was authorized to practice law in a 
jurisdiction where he was not authorized to practice law, indicating that he was a 
partner in a fictitious law firm, and using the names of other attorneys without 
permission to create the impression of a legal partnership or association where 
none existed.  In addition, the panel found that by practicing under a firm name 
that is misleading as to the lawyers practicing under the name, respondent had 
violated DR 2-102(B) (practicing under a misleading name), and that by holding 
himself out as having a partnership with lawyers who were not in fact partners, 
respondent had violated 2-102(C) (falsely holding oneself out as part of a 
partnership or professional corporation).  Respondent also had failed to indicate 
on his letterhead the jurisdictional limitations of each lawyer listed, as required by 
DR 2-102(D). 
{¶10} Finally, the panel determined that respondent had violated Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G) by not cooperating in relator’s investigation into the allegations of 
misconduct against him.  To the contrary, the panel found that respondent had 
                                                 
1. 
The panel referred to a nonexistent rule, DR 3-102(D), in its report.  This error apparently 
originated in the complaint, but it is clear from the record that a finding of a violation of DR 3-
101(B) was intended. 
January Term, 2002 
5 
attempted to evade, avoid, and discredit the investigation and, moreover, had 
impugned the motives of Disciplinary Counsel and the investigating attorney. 
{¶11} The panel recommended that respondent be disbarred.  In making 
its recommendation, the panel considered as aggravating factors that respondent is 
presently under an indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio, that the 
misconduct occurred while respondent was indefinitely suspended, and that 
respondent had been previously denied reinstatement to the practice of law in 
Ohio.  The panel further considered as aggravating factors that the unauthorized 
practice of law occurred because respondent was in financial difficulty, that the 
proven misconduct repeated behavior for which respondent had been previously 
sanctioned, and that his misconduct had led to disciplinary action in other 
jurisdictions.  The panel also considered respondent’s failure to cooperate in the 
disciplinary process as aggravating.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of 
fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction of disbarment. 
{¶12} On review, we find that the evidence of record supports the board’s 
findings of misconduct.  Respondent has admitted that while suspended by this 
court, he repeatedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Maryland.  
Respondent also acknowledged, and the evidence shows, that respondent has 
repeatedly held himself out as an attorney while under suspension and in a 
jurisdiction where he was not licensed to practice law.  Furthermore, despite his 
assertions to the contrary, respondent misappropriated the names of other 
attorneys by listing them on professional letterhead without proper authorization.  
Moreover, much of his misconduct here is similar to the violations that we found 
respondent to have committed previously.  See Mbakpuo, 73 Ohio St.3d 292, 652 
N.E.2d 976. 
{¶13} The normal penalty for continuing to practice law while under 
suspension is disbarment.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
433, 436, 674 N.E.2d 1371.  Respondent has offered no compelling mitigating 
evidence that would justify a lesser sanction. 
{¶14} We agree that respondent should be disbarred, as the board 
recommended.  In this case, we disbar an attorney who (1) violated our order 
suspending his license to practice law, (2) engaged in the unauthorized practice of 
law by representing clients in a jurisdiction in which he was not licensed, (3) 
represented that he was a partner in a law firm that did not exist, (4) used the 
names of other attorneys without permission to create the impression of a legal 
partnership or association where none existed, and (5) failed to cooperate in the 
investigation of this misconduct. 
{¶15} Accordingly, respondent is disbarred from the practice of law in 
Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kevin L. Williams, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo, pro se. 
__________________