Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace

Citation: 2002-Ohio-1240

Docket Number: 20011136

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-03-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace, 94 Ohio St.3d 414, 2002-Ohio-1240.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WALLACE. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 414.] 
Attorneys at law – Complaint charging attorney with practicing law while under 
suspension dismissed, when. 
(No. 01-1136 — Submitted August 28, 2001 — Decided March 6, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-96. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J.  On May 31, 2000, we suspended respondent, 
Paul Wallace of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0010369, from the 
practice of law for six months.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace (2000), 89 Ohio 
St.3d 113, 729 N.E.2d 343.  On December 4, 2000, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, 
filed a complaint charging that in June 2000, while he was under the order of 
suspension, respondent not only engaged in certain actions that constituted the 
practice of law but also failed to inform opposing counsel of his suspension.  
Respondent answered and admitted that he had taken the actions as alleged.  
However, respondent claimed that they were ministerial, did not involve the 
practice of law, and that the counsel who were not informed of his suspension 
were not opposing counsel.  The matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”). 
 
The stipulations and the board’s findings reveal the following facts.  In 
1999, respondent began representing Gerald Ioannides by negotiating Ioannides’s 
purchase of Crossridge, Inc., a company that had operated a landfill.  As part of 
the deal, Crossridge was to assign its permit to operate the landfill to Ioannides.  
However, before the permit could be assigned to Ioannides, the Environmental 
Protection Agency required Ioannides to pass a background check with the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Environmental Background Investigative Unit of the Ohio Attorney General’s 
Office (“EBIU”).  Accordingly, respondent prepared the background investigation 
documents and submitted them to the EBIU on March 8, 2000. 
 
Pursuant to a May 31, 2000 order from this court, respondent began 
notifying clients (including Ioannides), courts, and opposing counsel of his 
suspension from the practice of law.  Consequently, Ioannides made arrangements 
with Peter Precario to represent him in the acquisition of Crossridge and the 
transfer of the permit.  However, Precario did not take over representation until 
July 17, 2000.  On June 7, 2000, Assistant Attorney General Ann Wood notified 
respondent by phone that the EBIU had not received all the documents needed to 
complete its investigation of Ioannides.  In response, on June 9, 2000, respondent 
faxed a copy of the assignment of purchase agreement to the EBIU.  In July 2000, 
respondent received a message from Wood that again sought certain 
documentation for the Ioannides investigation.  Respondent attempted to contact 
Wood to determine what documentation was still missing.  However, Wood was 
not in the office, so respondent left a voice mail inquiring as to the status of 
Ioannides’s file.  During these contacts, respondent never informed Wood or the 
EBIU that he was suspended from practicing law. 
 
The panel found that respondent’s communication to Wood in June 2000 
that he would again supply the documents that he had previously furnished to the 
EBIU and his voice mail message to Wood asking her whether she had the 
“complete package,” together with the use of his letterhead as a cover for 
transmitting documents to the EBIU by ordinary mail, were not the practice of 
law. 
 
The panel then concluded that by not informing Wood and the EBIU of 
his suspension in his various communications with them, respondent technically 
violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely 
January Term, 2002 
3 
reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The panel recommended that 
respondent receive a public reprimand. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
 
We adopt the board’s findings and conclusion that Wallace was not 
practicing law when he provided documentation to the EBIU.  However, we do 
not adopt the board’s conclusion and recommendation that Wallace violated DR 
1-102(A)(6) by not informing Wood or the EBIU of his suspension. 
 
This court’s order suspending respondent required that he do the 
following: 
 
“1. Notify all clients being represented in pending matters * * * of his 
suspension * * * and * * * notify clients to seek legal service elsewhere * * *; 
 
“* * * 
   
“4. Notify opposing counsel in pending litigation or, in the absence of 
counsel, the adverse parties, of his disqualification to act as an attorney after the 
effective date of this order * * *.” (Emphasis added.) 
 
Upon notification of his suspension, respondent began complying with the 
order by notifying his clients, including Ioannides, of his suspension.  However, 
this order did not require Wallace to notify either Wood or the EBIU of his 
suspension because respondent was not involved in litigation on behalf of his 
client with either Wood or the EBIU.  The process of providing documents to the 
EBIU so that it could complete its background check was not litigation and 
merely involved resubmitting background investigation documents on behalf of 
Ioannides to the EBIU, which was a ministerial act.  As the board found, 
respondent’s submission of additional documents to the EBIU was not even the 
practice of law. 
 
Therefore, because the respondent’s actions herein were not litigation, 
Wood was not an opposing counsel, the EBIU was not an opposing party, and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
merely providing missing documentation to the EBIU was not practicing law, we 
find that the respondent was under no obligation to notify either Wood or the 
EBIU of his suspension pursuant to this court’s order.  As a result, we find that 
respondent did not violate DR 1-102(A)(6).  Accordingly, we dismiss the charges 
against respondent. 
Cause dismissed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in judgment. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Nelson E. Genshaft and Benson A. Wolman, for respondent. 
__________________