Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Dragelevich

Citation: 2005-Ohio-5515

Docket Number: 20050823

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-11-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Dragelevich, 106 Ohio St.3d 478, 2005-Ohio-5515.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DRAGELEVICH. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Dragelevich,  
106 Ohio St.3d 478, 2005-Ohio-5515.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Felony conviction — Engaging in conduct involving 
fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Indefinite suspension 
with credit for time served. 
(No. 2005-0823 — Submitted June 28, 2005 — Decided  
November 2, 2005, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-024. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, J. Walter Dragelevich of Niles, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0019672, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1966.  On September 
12, 2003, we imposed an interim suspension under Gov.Bar R. V(5) after we 
received notice that respondent had been convicted of a felony offense.  In re 
Dragelevich, 99 Ohio St.3d 1552, 2003-Ohio-4827, 795 N.E.2d 688. 
{¶ 2} On April 19, 2004, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with professional misconduct.  When service of the 
complaint on respondent by certified mail could not be completed, the complaint 
was served on the Clerk of the Supreme Court as respondent’s agent pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent did not answer, and relator moved for default 
under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner appointed by the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline granted the motion, making 
findings of misconduct, which the board adopted.  The master commissioner 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
recommended an indefinite suspension, and the board agreed, but the board 
further recommended that respondent be given credit for time served after the 
interim suspension was imposed on September 12, 2003. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In 2003, respondent entered a plea of guilty to a federal felony 
criminal charge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
Ohio, case No. 4:03CR054.  He had knowingly caused the odometer on a vehicle 
to be altered in May 2001 so that the mileage displayed on the odometer changed 
from 26,624 miles to 16,651 miles.  His actions violated Section 32703(2), Title 
49, U.S.Code.  Respondent was sentenced to a term of two years of probation 
with a requirement that he perform 100 hours of community service and pay a 
$5,000 fine. 
{¶ 4} Relator alleged in his complaint that respondent had violated DR 
1-102(A)(4) 
(barring 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on a 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The master commissioner and the board found 
that respondent had indeed violated those provisions. 
{¶ 5} In recommending a sanction for the misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  On 
the aggravating side of the equation, the board found that respondent had acted 
with a dishonest motive.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  In mitigation, the board 
noted that respondent had no prior disciplinary record and had been punished in 
federal court for his crime.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (f). 
{¶ 6} Relator recommended that respondent’s license to practice law be 
indefinitely suspended for his misconduct.  The master commissioner accepted 
January Term, 2005 
3 
this recommendation, and the board further recommended that respondent be 
granted credit for time served. 
{¶ 7} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 1-
102(A)(6), and we also agree that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate 
sanction.  We have imposed that penalty in similar cases.  See, e.g., Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Rolla (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 27, 765 N.E.2d 316 (indefinite suspension 
imposed after lawyer was convicted on several felony charges); Cincinnati Bar 
Assn. v. Holcombe (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 141, 753 N.E.2d 176 (indefinite 
suspension imposed after lawyer was convicted on one felony charge). 
{¶ 8} Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio, with credit for time served after the interim suspension 
was imposed on September 12, 2003.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________