Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Peters

Citation: 2002-Ohio-639

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-01-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Peters, 94 Ohio St.3d 215, 2002-Ohio-639.] 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. PETERS. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Peters (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 215.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension commencing on May 23, 
2000 — Convictions for having an unlawful interest in a public contract, 
conflict of interest, and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. 
(No. 01-1560 — Submitted October 16, 2001 — Decided January 30, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-98. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On May 23, 2000, being advised that respondent, Cindy 
Virginia Peters of Akron, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0021345, had been 
convicted of a felony, we suspended her from the practice of law for an interim 
period as provided in Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4).  In re Peters (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 
1403, 728 N.E.2d 1089. 
 
On December 4, 2000, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent’s conviction constituted a violation of several provisions 
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent answered, and the matter 
was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
Based on the stipulations of the parties, the panel found that from 
February 1994 through January 1998, while serving as representative of Summit 
County on the Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority, respondent was employed 
by a consultant to the housing authority.  During that time she shared fees and 
other items of value she received from the consultant with the Summit County 
Executive Director.  In addition, the executive director, with the knowledge of 
respondent, recommended that law firms retained by Summit County pay the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
consultant for work on Summit County projects.  These financial arrangements 
were not disclosed to the public. 
 
As a result of an investigation, respondent was indicted and in November 
1999, pled guilty in state court to having an unlawful interest in a public contract, 
a felony under Ohio law, and conflict of interest, a misdemeanor under Ohio law.  
She also pled guilty in federal court to conspiracy to commit mail fraud.  In 
February 2000, the federal district court sentenced her to be incarcerated for four 
months followed by home confinement and electronic monitoring for the next six 
months, and ordered her to pay $70,000 in restitution.  The panel concluded that 
respondent’s conduct and convictions constituted violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial 
to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in 
conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 7-102(A)(7) 
(a lawyer shall not counsel or assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows to 
be illegal or fraudulent), 7-102(A)(8) (a lawyer shall not knowingly engage in 
illegal conduct or conduct contrary to a Disciplinary Rule), and 9-101(C) (a 
lawyer shall not state or imply the ability to influence improperly a tribunal, 
legislative body, or public official). 
 
The panel noted that respondent had no prior disciplinary offenses, had a 
minor role in the conspiracy, demonstrated remorse, cooperated fully in the 
disciplinary process, and was in the process of  making restitution.  It noted 
additionally that she is the sole provider for her family of two daughters, and that 
she has sought counseling.  In addition, the panel received voluminous letters 
testifying to respondent’s good character.  The panel recommended that she be 
suspended from the practice of law for two years commencing the date that this 
court first imposed the interim suspension. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
 
On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice 
for law for two years with the two-year suspension deemed to have commenced 
on May 23, 2000.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Thomas R. Pitts and Stanley Wiener, for relator. 
 
Michael B. Bowler, for respondent. 
__________________