Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Mandel

Citation: 2000-Ohio-98

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mandel, 90 Ohio St.3d 401, 2000-Ohio-98.] 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MANDEL. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mandel (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 401.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice — Knowingly making 
a false statement of law or fact — Participating in the creation of 
evidence knowing that the evidence is false — Engaging in illegal 
conduct involving moral turpitude. 
(No. 00-1108 — Submitted August 22, 2000 — Decided December 13, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-98. 
 
On August 27, 1999, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a four-
count amended complaint charging respondent, Stewart I. Mandel, a.k.a. Stewart 
Irwin Mandel, of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0026161, with the 
violation of several Disciplinary Rules.  After respondent answered, relator 
dismissed Count Four of its complaint, and the matter was submitted on agreed 
stipulations to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel found that in April 1998, respondent pled guilty in the United 
States District Court to filing a false corporate tax return for one of his clients, a 
felony under Section 7206(1), Title 26, U.S.Code.  The court sentenced 
respondent to six months house arrest, two years probation, 250 hours of 
community service, and a $100 fine.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), we 
suspended respondent.  In re Stewart (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1441, 700 N.E.2d 30.  
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) 
 
 
2
(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct 
reflecting adversely on the fitness of the lawyer to practice law). 
 
The panel also found that in July 1993, respondent filed an application 
with the Ohio Department of Commerce to obtain the transfer of a fireworks 
manufacturing license to a company of which he claimed to be the sole owner.  
Respondent concealed the fact that financial control of the company was 
maintained by Lenine Strollo, who, because of a felony conviction, was precluded 
from involvement with a company engaged in the manufacture of  fireworks.  
Respondent continued to conceal this fact by filing false license renewal 
applications in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, and by falsely testifying under oath 
that he was the only representative of the fireworks company at a 1995 hearing on 
revocation of the fireworks license. 
 
The panel found that respondent’s activities violated R.C. 2921.13(A), 
which prohibits making a false statement to mislead a public official or to secure a 
license or permit from a governmental agency.  The panel concluded that 
respondent’s concealments and false testimony violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-
102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice), 1-102(A)(6), 7-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false 
statement of law or fact), and 7-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not participate in the 
creation of evidence when he knows or it is obvious that the evidence is false). 
 
The panel further found that in exchange for an investment of $100,000 by 
Lenine Strollo, the fireworks company issued stock to Dominic Strollo, Lenine’s 
brother.  The purpose of the transfer was to enable Lenine Strollo to control the 
fireworks company while apparent control was in respondent.  The transfer of 
stock was not documented at the time.  When respondent later discovered that 
federal authorities were investigating the Strollos’ involvement with the fireworks 
company, he contacted another attorney to create notes to document the transfer 
 
 
3
of stock.  Before the notes could be created, respondent was indicted for and pled 
guilty to tax fraud.  The panel concluded that respondent’s actions violated DR 1-
102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6). 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Don L. Hanni, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law 
in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.