Case Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Greenberg

Citation: 2013-Ohio-1723

Docket Number: 2012-2066

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Greenberg, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1723.] 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-1723 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. GREENBERG. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Greenberg,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1723.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Indefinite license suspension after felony conviction, 
with no credit for time served under the interim felony suspension. 
(No. 2012-2066—Submitted February 6, 2013—Decided May 1, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-092. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Marc Norman Greenberg of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0077480, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2004.  
We suspended Greenberg’s license to practice law on November 23, 2010, on an 
interim basis pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), upon receiving notice that he 
had been convicted of a felony.  In re Greenberg, 127 Ohio St.3d 1437, 2010-
Ohio-5690, 937 N.E.2d 117. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Relator, Dayton Bar Association, charged Greenberg with 
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal 
act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) and (h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline heard the case, including the parties’ stipulations to the 
cited misconduct, made findings of misconduct, and recommended an indefinite 
suspension with no credit for time served under the interim suspension.  The 
board adopted the panel’s findings and recommended sanction, and, after the 
board issued its report, the parties stipulated to the findings and sanction.  We 
adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct.  Having considered 
Greenberg’s misconduct, the aggravating and mitigating factors present, and the 
sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct, we adopt the board’s 
recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The stipulated facts and testimony demonstrate that from February 
to April 2009, Greenberg used his computer to make contact with three 
undercover law-enforcement officers who were posing on the Internet as 12- and 
13-year-old girls.  He entered various chat rooms that were geared toward 
meeting minor girls and identified himself at various times as an 18-year-old, a 
25-year-old, and a 31-year-old male.  A series of sexually explicit conversations 
ensued between Greenberg and the undercover agents, during which Greenberg 
used his computer’s webcam to stream to the agents video and pictures of his 
exposed penis and of himself masturbating. 
{¶ 4} Greenberg was indicted in the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division.  The indictment alleged that he had 
transferred obscene material to minors in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1470.  Through 
plea negotiations, the initial indictment was dismissed in favor of a bill of 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
information that alleged two counts: one count of possessing child pornography 
and one count of transferring obscene material to minors.  Greenberg entered a 
plea of guilty to both counts on August 4, 2010, and was sentenced to two years in 
a federal penitentiary.  In addition to the prison sentence, the federal court ordered 
that after his release Greenberg serve five years of supervised release, and it 
classified him as a sex offender, allowing only incidental contact with minor 
children, except his biological children, unless otherwise approved.  Greenberg 
was incarcerated on December 21, 2010, and was released on September 13, 
2012.  Upon his arrest in May 2009, Greenberg had voluntarily stopped practicing 
law and had changed the status of his license to inactive. 
{¶ 5} Based on these facts, the panel and the board found that Greenberg 
had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and (h) and recommended that he be indefinitely 
suspended, with no credit for time served under the interim felony suspension 
imposed on November 23, 2010.  We agree. 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 
473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  Each disciplinary case involves 
unique facts and circumstances; thus we are not limited to the factors specified in 
BDGD Proc.Reg. 10(B) and may take into account all relevant factors in 
determining which sanction to impose. 
{¶ 7} As for mitigation, the parties stipulated, and the board noted, that 
Greenberg has no prior disciplinary record, voluntarily stopped practicing law, 
exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
acknowledged the wrongful nature of his misconduct, and made good-faith efforts 
to rectify the consequences of his actions.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), 
and (d).  The board further found, as mitigating factors, that Greenberg has been 
subject to severe sanctions and penalties.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f).  
Greenberg was sentenced to two years in a federal penitentiary 1,800 miles from 
his family, but was released early for good behavior; he was on home 
confinement for 19 months before his incarceration; he is under a five-year period 
of supervised release that began upon his release from incarceration; he must 
register as a sex offender; he is restricted to limited contact with minor children, 
except his biological children; he was subject to public humiliation as a result of 
highly publicized proceedings; he has suffered financial devastation; and he will 
never be permitted to coach basketball again. 
{¶ 8} Although the board did not find that Greenberg’s mental condition 
qualified as a mental disability under BDGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g), we 
additionally note that Greenberg participated in therapy before his incarceration 
and while he was in prison and that he plans to continue therapy for his diagnosed 
mental disorder, paraphilia. 
{¶ 9} The board found that three aggravating factors were present: 
Greenberg exhibited a selfish motive in that he sought to use minors for self-
gratification, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), he committed multiple offenses, 
see BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d), and he intended to prey on vulnerable 12- and 
13-year-old children. 
{¶ 10} The board cites Disciplinary Counsel v. Butler, 128 Ohio St.3d 
319, 2011-Ohio-236, 943 N.E.2d 1025, as instructive under these circumstances.  
In Butler, the respondent was convicted of ten felony counts of pandering 
sexually oriented material involving a minor, and we imposed an interim felony 
suspension on his license.  Id. at ¶ 1.  The board found that none of the factors in 
aggravation set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) were present.  It found in 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
mitigation that the respondent lacked a prior disciplinary record, provided full and 
free disclosure to the board, and was cooperative in the proceedings.  We agreed 
with the board’s recommendation and imposed an indefinite suspension with no 
credit for time served under his interim suspension.  Id. at ¶ 3, 4. 
{¶ 11} Disciplinary Counsel v. Ridenbaugh, 122 Ohio St.3d 583, 2009-
Ohio-4091, 913 N.E.2d 443, is also instructive.  In that case, we imposed an 
indefinite suspension with credit for time served under an interim suspension 
order for misconduct involving acts of voyeurism and use of child pornography.  
The respondent in Ridenbaugh, as was Greenberg, was a young lawyer relatively 
new to the practice with no prior discipline, he fully cooperated in both the 
disciplinary and criminal processes, and he made every attempt to rectify his 
misconduct by seeking and continuing treatment for his disorders.  Id. at ¶ 15-17.  
The aggravating factors were similar to those here: a selfish motive and multiple 
offenses.  Id. at ¶ 20-22.  Also, as did Greenberg, the respondent deeply regretted 
his misconduct and the devastating effects on his family, friends, and colleagues, 
as noted by the court. 
{¶ 12} When a lawyer engages in or attempts to engage in sexually 
motivated conduct with an underage person, an indefinite suspension of the 
lawyer’s license to practice is appropriate.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldblatt, 118 
Ohio St.3d 310, 2008-Ohio-2458, 888 N.E.2d 1091, ¶ 18.  “Moreover, lawyers 
convicted of felonies stemming from such conduct cannot expect to receive credit 
for an interim suspension imposed pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4).  Such 
credit is given only when the attorney poses no danger of reoffending.”  Id. 
{¶ 13} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 
we adopt the board’s recommended sanction.  Accordingly, we suspend Marc 
Greenberg from the practice of law in Ohio indefinitely, with no credit for time 
served under his interim felony suspension. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 14} Costs are taxed to Greenberg. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, JJ., 
concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents and would disbar Greenberg. 
O’NEILL, J., dissents and would grant Greenberg credit for time served 
under his interim felony suspension. 
__________________ 
Altick & Corwin Co., L.P.A., and Peter R. Certo, for relator. 
Bieser, Greer & Landis, L.L.P., David C. Greer, and Gretchen M. 
Treherne, for respondent. 
______________________