Case Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Kinney

Citation: 2000-Ohio-445

Docket Number: 19992238

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Kinney, 89 Ohio St.3d 77, 2000-Ohio-445.] 
 
 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. KINNEY. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Kinney (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 77.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire suspension 
stayed — Knowingly making a false statement of law or fact — Counseling 
or assisting client in conduct lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent — 
Concealing or knowingly failing to disclose that which a lawyer is required 
by law to reveal — Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in illegal conduct involving 
moral turpitude — Violating the Discipline Rules. 
(No. 99-2238 — Submitted February 9, 2000 — Decided May 24, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-79. 
 
Respondent, Winfield E. Kinney III of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No. 0002995, representing a client, prepared the documents necessary for the sale 
of a bar in downtown Dayton, Ohio.  Among the documents were forms required 
by the Ohio Department of Commerce, Liquor Control Division, as part of the 
liquor permit application and transfer process.  On those documents respondent 
represented that the purchase price for the establishment was $125,000, when 
respondent knew that the purchase price was actually $200,000. 
 
2
 
On September 22, 1998, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a complaint 
against respondent, charging that respondent had violated DR 7-102(A)(5) (a 
lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of law or fact), 7-102(A)(7) 
(counseling or assisting a client in conduct the lawyer knows to be illegal or 
fraudulent), 7-102(A)(3) (concealing or knowingly failing to disclose that which a 
lawyer is required by law to reveal), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal 
conduct involving moral turpitude), and 1-102(A)(1) (violating the Disciplinary 
Rules).  Respondent admitted the facts alleged in the complaint in his answer.  A 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme 
Court (“board”) heard the matter. 
 
The panel found the facts as alleged in the complaint.  The panel also found 
that respondent’s action was an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished, 
lengthy legal career, and that his action did not result in any benefit that would not 
have occurred absent his transgression.  Based on these facts, the panel concluded 
that respondent committed all six of the charged disciplinary violations and 
recommended that he receive a six-month suspension with the entire suspension 
stayed.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
__________________ 
 
3
 
Mark A. Tuss, for relator. 
 
Leo F. Krebs, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  In the 
past, we have held that an attorney who violates DR 1-102(A)(4) will actually be 
suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time.  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240.  
However, we have also held that mitigating factors will warrant a lesser sanction in 
appropriate cases.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Eisenberg (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 295, 
296, 690 N.E.2d 1282, 1283.  In light of the fact that respondent’s action was an 
isolated incident and the outcome of his representation would not have changed 
absent the misconduct, we adopt the recommendation of the board.  Accordingly, 
respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six months, with the 
entire suspension stayed.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.