Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kenney

Citation: 2006-Ohio-3458

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-07-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kenney, 110 Ohio St.3d 38, 2006-Ohio-3458.] 
 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. KENNEY. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kenney, 110 Ohio St.3d 38, 2006-Ohio-3458.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or 
misrepresentation — Illegal conduct involving moral turpitude — Two-
year suspension and probation. 
(No. 2006-0061 — Submitted March 15, 2006 — Decided July 19, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-029. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, James P. Kenney of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0023854, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1975. 
{¶ 2} On April 18, 2005, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged 
that respondent had been convicted of a sex crime and had thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(3) (prohibiting illegal conduct involving moral turpitude).  Relator also 
charged that by lying to law-enforcement officers during the investigation of this 
criminal activity, respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct 
involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation).  A panel of the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause, including the 
parties’ comprehensive stipulations, and made findings of misconduct and a 
recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent, a former Hamilton County Municipal Court judge, 
was employed as an assistant Hamilton County prosecutor during the underlying 
events.  On August 31, 2004, respondent was charged by information with and 
pleaded guilty to sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.06, a misdemeanor 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
of the third degree. He was sentenced to 60 days in the county jail, with 50 days 
suspended, and two years of probation during which he was to submit to 
psychological therapy and complete an outpatient drug program.  Respondent was 
initially classified as a sexually oriented offender, but that designation was 
removed on appeal. 
{¶ 4} Respondent admitted the violation of DR 1-102(A)(3) but denied 
that he had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) in responding to questions of officers in the 
Delhi Police Department.  The board found both violations based on the parties’ 
stipulations, their exhibits, and respondent’s testimony before the hearing panel. 
{¶ 5} Evidence established that a Delhi police detective questioned 
respondent on March 7, 2004, after a 21-year-old male accused respondent of 
having unlawful sexual contact with him.  During the interview, respondent made 
statements without invoking his Miranda rights and denied that he had done 
anything improper to the victim.  In a later interview with sheriff’s officers, 
respondent confessed that he had touched the victim’s stomach while the victim 
slept on a sofa in respondent’s home. 
{¶ 6} At the panel hearing, respondent reluctantly explained that he had 
first denied all contact with the victim, hoping to close the investigation of the 
Delhi police and avoid all responsibility for his crime.  When the sheriff’s officers 
also investigated the allegations, however, respondent confessed part of the truth 
about what had happened and conceded that he had not disclosed these facts 
during the Delhi police interview.  The panel found that respondent had thereby 
attempted to mislead law-enforcement authorities, in violation of DR 1-
102(A)(4). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 7} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel and 
board weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case.  See 
Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
January Term, 2006 
3 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The board also took into account that respondent had lost 
his job as an assistant prosecutor in March 2004 and has not practiced law since 
then, except for one small probate matter.  The board additionally considered 
respondent’s claim that he has not had any alcohol since August or September 
2004, approximately six months after the incident that led to these proceedings. 
{¶ 8} In mitigation, the board found that respondent had no prior record 
of professional discipline and that by pleading guilty and obtaining counseling, he 
also had taken steps to rectify the consequences of his wrongdoing.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (c).  The board additionally found mitigating that 
respondent had already been sentenced for his crime, served the ten days in jail as 
ordered, and participated in alcohol-abuse counseling and behavior-modification 
counseling.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f).  The board further found that 
respondent had cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings, and the board 
considered numerous letters in support of respondent’s otherwise good character.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d) and (e). 
{¶ 9} As an aggravating circumstance, the board found that respondent 
had acted selfishly and dishonestly and had harmed a vulnerable victim.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) and (h).  Moreover, respondent had committed his crime 
after a night of overindulging in alcohol and had attributed his wrongdoing to the 
effect of alcohol.  Notwithstanding this, respondent had failed to acknowledge 
that he likely required ongoing treatment for alcohol abuse.  The board considered 
that failure an additional aggravating factor. 
{¶ 10} Relator proposed that respondent receive a sanction of a one-year 
suspension from the practice of law.  Respondent argued for a conditional stay of 
any suspension imposed. 
{¶ 11} The board adopted the panel’s recommendation for a two-year 
suspension with 18 months stayed on conditions and a two-year probation on the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
same conditions that respondent (1) enter into a treatment contract with the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program, (2) abstain from consumption of alcohol, (3) submit 
to random urinalysis testing, and (4) attend a minimum of two Alcoholics 
Anonymous meetings per week.  Neither relator nor respondent objects to this 
recommendation. 
Review 
{¶ 12} We agree that respondent’s conviction and conduct during the 
criminal investigation constitute violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) and (4) as found by 
the board.  Respondent stipulated to the first violation, and we have found a 
violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) before when a lawyer lied to an investigating officer 
about a sexual encounter.  See Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wolf (1997), 78 Ohio 
St.3d 476, 678 N.E.2d 930 (six-month stayed suspension imposed).  Moreover, as 
the board found, the recommended sanction is appropriate given the gravity of 
respondent’s misconduct, the aggravating factors, and the mitigation evidence.  
See Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 
237, syllabus, (actual suspension from the practice of law is warranted for acts of 
dishonesty and deceit), and Disciplinary Counsel v. Norris (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 
93, 666 N.E.2d 1087 (prosecuting attorney suspended for two years, with one year 
stayed, based on his conviction of a misdemeanor cocaine-possession charge). 
{¶ 13} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for two years; however, 18 months of the suspension are stayed on the 
conditions that respondent (1) enter into a treatment contract with the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program, (2) abstain from consumption of alcohol, (3) submit 
to random urinalysis testing, and (4) attend a minimum of two Alcoholics 
Anonymous meetings per week.  Upon reinstatement, respondent shall be placed 
on probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9) on the same conditions for a period of 
two years.  If respondent fails to comply with these conditions, the stay or 
January Term, 2006 
5 
probation, as it may apply, shall be terminated, and respondent shall serve the 
entire two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jennifer L. Branch, Dimity V. Orlet, and Peter Rosenwald, for relator. 
 
H. Fred Hoefle, for respondent. 
______________________