Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Thompson

Citation: 2011-Ohio-3095

Docket Number: 20110300

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-06-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Thompson, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-3095.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-3095 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. THOMPSON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Thompson,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-3095.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Notarization of unsigned documents — Public 
reprimand. 
(No. 2011-0300 — Submitted March 23, 2011 — Decided June 30, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-054. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Stephen Gregory Thompson of Cincinnati, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0020685, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1983. On June 14, 2010, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged respondent 
with a single violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  The 
complaint alleged that respondent had notarized two unsigned documents. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, 
filed pursuant to Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”)   The panel accepted the 
agreement, made corresponding findings of misconduct and a recommendation, 
which the board adopted.  We adopt that recommendation and publicly reprimand 
respondent for his misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The stipulated facts of this case show that in August 2009, 
respondent’s former law partner brought him a number of documents to notarize.  
Respondent entered the month, day, and year into the jurats and notarized two 
documents that his former partner had signed. 
{¶ 4} Among the documents were two forms for removal of a name from 
a Kentucky liquor license.  Respondent’s former partner had prepared those 
documents for the signature of a business associate with whom he had been 
engaged in a legal dispute.  If signed, the affidavits would have divested the 
business partner of his interest in two liquor licenses.  Respondent did not enter 
the date on the jurats, but he notarized the unsigned documents in contravention 
of the jurat which stated, “I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State 
and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that _________________ personally 
appeared before me and acknowledged the above to be their free act and deed.”  
Respondent’s former partner later entered the name of his business associate and 
presented the pre-notarized documents to him for his signature, but his associate 
did not sign either document. 
{¶ 5} Based upon these stipulated facts, the board found, and we agree, 
that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c). 
Sanction 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
{¶ 6} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
board considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10.  The board found no aggravating factors, and in mitigation found that 
respondent does not have a prior disciplinary record, that he fully and freely self-
reported his misconduct to relator, that he cooperated in these disciplinary 
proceedings, and that he has presented evidence of his good character and 
reputation.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d) and (e). 
{¶ 7} Citing Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dougherty, 105 Ohio St.3d 307, 
2005-Ohio-1825, 825 N.E.2d 1094, the panel and board recommend that we adopt 
the parties’ stipulated sanction of a public reprimand. 
{¶ 8} In Dougherty, we publicly reprimanded an attorney who violated 
DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6) by notarizing a purported affiant’s signature without 
having actually witnessed the signature.  Id. at ¶ 4, 17.  Although we 
acknowledged that misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation generally warrants an actual suspension from the practice of 
law, we concluded that Daugherty’s conduct was not as egregious as that of other 
attorneys who had received actual suspensions, given that there was no evidence 
establishing that she had engaged in a course of conduct designed to deceive.  
Therefore, we rejected relator’s recommended sanction of an 18-month 
suspension with 12 months stayed.  Id. at ¶ 10, 16-17.  Observing that 
Dougherty’s misconduct arose from a single, isolated incident and citing 
mitigating evidence that included her lack of a prior disciplinary record, her 
acknowledgment of her misconduct, her sincere apology, and her cooperation in 
the disciplinary proceedings, we imposed a public reprimand. 
{¶ 9} In this case, the parties have entered into a consent to discipline 
and agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s 
misconduct.  In light of the mitigating factors in this case, we agree.  Accordingly, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
respondent is publicly reprimanded for his violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c).  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Anita S. Cross and Ernest F. McAdams Jr., for relator. 
George D. Jonson, for respondent. 
______________________