Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Flowers

Citation: 2014-Ohio-2123

Docket Number: 2013-1621

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-05-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Flowers, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2123.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-2123 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FLOWERS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Flowers,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2123.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on a 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2013-1621—Submitted November 6, 2013—Decided May 28, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-031. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Janice Marie Flowers of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0074318, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001.  
On May 13, 2013, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Flowers with professional 
misconduct after Flowers, on two separate occasions and with her client’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
permission, signed her client’s name to five affidavits and then improperly 
notarized the client’s purported signatures on the affidavits. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11. 
{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Flowers stipulates to the 
facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that her conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 
law). 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that mitigating factors include the absence of 
a prior disciplinary record and Flowers’s cooperative attitude in the disciplinary 
proceeding.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  The parties agree that 
there are no aggravating factors.  Based upon these factors, the parties stipulate 
that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for Flowers’s misconduct. 
{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety.  In support of this recommendation, the panel and board 
refer to Disciplinary Counsel v. Mezacapa, 101 Ohio St.3d 156, 2004-Ohio-302, 
803 N.E.2d 397 (a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for an attorney 
who signed a client’s name on an affidavit with the client’s permission and then 
notarized the signature as that of the client); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Thomas, 93 
Ohio St.3d 402, 754 N.E.2d 1263 (2001) (same); Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Melnick, 107 Ohio St.3d 240, 2005-Ohio-6265, 837 N.E.2d 1203 (a public 
reprimand was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who notarized signatures 
on three affidavits even though he had not complied with the jurat representation 
that the signatures were sworn to and subscribed in his presence).  We agree that 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
Flowers violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and 8.4(h) and, as stated in the parties’ 
agreement and as indicated by the cited precedent, that this conduct warrants a 
public reprimand.  Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline 
agreement. 
{¶ 6} Accordingly, Flowers is publicly reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to 
Flowers. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald Scheetz, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
James E. Arnold & Associates, L.P.A., and Alvin E. Mathews Jr., for 
respondent. 
________________________