Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart

Citation: 1998-Ohio-687

Docket Number: 19980401

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. LOCKHART. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with one year stayed — 
Conviction of petty theft — Conviction of tampering with records. 
(No. 98-401 — Submitted July 8, 1998 — Decided November 10, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-23. 
 
On February 18, 1997, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent, Carol Ann Lockhart of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0038474, violated  DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(5) 
(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).  Respondent 
answered, and the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”), which held a 
hearing and received stipulations. 
 
The panel found that in 1996 as a result of a shoplifting incident in Toledo, 
Ohio, respondent was found guilty of petty theft, and was sentenced to ten days in 
jail.  Later, she pled guilty to shoplifting in Cleveland, Ohio, and was fined $1,000 
and placed on probation for a year.  The panel  further found that in order to 
discuss her Toledo shoplifting case with the assigned trial judge, respondent went 
to the office of the municipal court clerk and signed for and obtained the affidavit 
in her case.  When she took the affidavit to the judge’s office and found that he 
was not present, respondent left the affidavit on the bailiff’s desk and returned to 
the clerk’s office where she used “white-out” to erase her signature as the person 
who had taken the affidavit.  The judge discovered the affidavit and returned it to 
the clerk’s office. 
 
2
 
Thereafter, respondent was found guilty of two counts of tampering with 
records, and as a result received a six-month sentence and spent thirty-three days 
in jail.  At the time of the hearing, respondent was still on probation in Toledo and 
Cleveland and owed about $700 in court costs.  The panel concluded that 
respondent violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged. 
 
In mitigation, respondent presented evidence that during the time of her 
violations, her behavior was self-destructive and she had low self-esteem.  In 
addition, her inability to support herself by practicing law led to her depression.  
Since 1996, respondent has been successfully treated by a clinical therapist and a 
physician for these problems, and has emerged from her depression. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law for two years, with one year suspended, and that respondent be placed on 
probation on condition that she pay all fines and costs.  The panel also 
recommended that upon completion of the suspension, she submit to a psychiatric 
examination by a physician of relator’s choice to determine whether she is 
emotionally fit to resume the practice of law.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings and conclusions, but recommended that respondent be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law. 
__________________ 
 
Thomas J. Szyperski and M. Susan Swanson, for relator. 
 
James D. Caruso, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  
Respondent’s shoplifting violated DR 1-102(A)(4). Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Fidler 
(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 396, 700 N.E.2d 323. 
 
3
 
In view of respondent’s attempts to rehabilitate herself, we adopt the 
recommendation of the panel.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice 
of law for two years, with one year of that suspension stayed.  Respondent will be 
placed on probation, and her reinstatement will be conditioned on her payment of 
all fines and other costs related to her actions.  Upon completion of the 
suspension, she shall submit to a complete psychiatric examination by a physician 
of relator’s choice to determine whether she is emotionally fit to resume the 
practice of law.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, YOUNG, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents. 
 
JOHN C. YOUNG, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for RESNICK, J. 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  In accordance with the recommendation of the board, 
I would indefinitely suspend the respondent.