Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Allen

Citation: 2002-Ohio-4212

Docket Number: 20011137

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-01-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Allen, 94 Ohio St.3d 129, 2002-Ohio-4212.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ALLEN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Allen (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 129.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension with credit for time 
served under interim suspension — Conviction for perjury. 
(No. 01-1137 — Submitted September 19, 2001 — Decided January 9, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-94. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In March 1999, respondent, Doris H. Allen, last known 
address in Covington, Kentucky, Attorney Registration No. 0040292, was 
convicted by a jury of perjury in violation of R.C. 2921.11(A), tampering with 
evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(2), and tampering with records in 
violation of R.C. 2913.42(A)(1).1  After merging the first two convictions into the 
single perjury conviction, the trial court sentenced respondent to one year in 
prison for these offenses, the facts of which also underlay a previous disciplinary 
complaint that a majority of this court dismissed in 1998.  See Cincinnati Bar 
Assn. v. Allen (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 550, 550-553, 697 N.E.2d 189, 189-191 
(Moyer, C.J., dissenting), and reconsideration denied (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1203, 
1203-1206, 702 N.E.2d 101, 101-103 (Lundberg Stratton, J., concurring).  In 
December 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent’s conviction constituted violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) 
(illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving fraud, 
deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the 
                                                          
 
1. 
On August 11, 1999, respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for an 
interim period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4).  See In re Houser Allen (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 
1451, 714 N.E.2d 403. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
administration of justice), and 7-102(A)(7) (assisting a client in conduct the 
lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent). 
 
Respondent was apparently served with a copy of the complaint while 
incarcerated, but did not answer,2 and relator filed a motion for default pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1).  A master commissioner for the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) considered the 
motion and recommended that respondent be found in violation of the charged 
Disciplinary Rules and that she be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law 
in Ohio.  On further review, the board adopted the master commissioner’s 
findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as the recommended sanction. 
 
We concur in the board’s recommendation, as modified.  In 1996, while 
representing Sylvia Huff in the attempt to procure custody of Huff’s children, 
respondent dictated and had Huff sign an affidavit alleging that the children’s 
father had “threatened” Huff and her children and was “armed and dangerous.”  A 
jury determined that respondent knew these allegations to be untrue.  Respondent 
then had Huff file a complaint charging the children’s father with domestic 
violence based on the false affidavit.  The father was subsequently arrested and 
taken into custody as a result. 
 
By oath or affirmation upon admission to the bar, an attorney promises to 
act as an officer of the court in abiding by our Code of Professional Responsibility 
and upholding the laws of this country and this state.  Gov.Bar R. I(8)(A).  Few 
infractions so impugn the integrity of our judicial system as do the crimes of 
perjury and tampering with court evidence or records. 
 
Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for an indefinite period to commence upon the date of our order; 
                                                          
 
2. 
Respondent corresponded with relator twice during the investigation, both times 
indicating that she did not want to respond and that she wanted to resign from the practice of law.  
To date, however, respondent has not documented her resignation. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
however, respondent is given credit for the time she has served since August 11, 
1999, the date of her interim suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., 
concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________