Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Pansiera

Citation: 1997-Ohio-93

Docket Number: 19960921

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-02-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Pansiera. 
1 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Pansiera (1996)_____Ohio St.3d______.] 
2 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Conviction 
3 
of corrupting a minor. 
4 
 
(No. 96-921 -- Submitted October 8, 1996 -- Decided February 19, 
5 
1997.) 
6 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
7 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-36. 
8 
 
On April 10, 1995,  the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the 
9 
Supreme Court of Ohio, relator, filed a complaint charging Terry Alan 
10 
Pansiera of Hamilton County, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0017819, 
11 
respondent, with a violation of  DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal 
12 
conduct involving moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct 
13 
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law).  The charges were 
14 
based on respondent’s conviction in common pleas court after a plea of 
15 
“guilty” to seven counts of corrupting a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.04.  
16 
On several occasions in 1993 and 1994, respondent “* * * engage[d] in 
17 
sexual conduct with another, who is not the spouse of the offender, when 
18 
 
2
the offender knows such other person is thirteen years of age or older but 
1 
less than sixteen years of age, or the offender is reckless in that regard.”  
2 
R.C. 2907.04, 143 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2049, 2053.  The acts of sexual 
3 
conduct forming the basis of respondent’s conviction normally occurred in 
4 
connection with meetings or activities of Alcoholics Anonymous, where 
5 
respondent became a friend of the child-victim.  On February 8, 1995, 
6 
respondent was sentenced to two years in prison, and on March 8, 1995, 
7 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(2) and (3), we suspended respondent from 
8 
the practice of law for an indefinite period.  In re Pansiera (1995), 71 Ohio 
9 
St.3d 1489, 646 N.E. 2d 465. 
10 
 
After respondent filed an answer and waived a hearing on this matter, 
11 
both relator and respondent filed briefs recommending appropriate 
12 
sanctions.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
13 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) found that respondent had 
14 
violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6) and recommended that 
15 
respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The board 
16 
adopted the panel’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation. 
17 
________________________________ 
18 
 
3
 
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant 
1 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
2 
 
Terry Alan Pansiera, pro se. 
3 
_________________________________ 
4 
 
Per Curiam.  In Disciplinary Counsel v. McCrae (1996), 75 Ohio 
5 
St.3d 511, 664 N.E.2d 523, we considered an attorney’s conviction for 
6 
conduct not directly relating to the practice of law and pointed out that the 
7 
Ethical Considerations adopted as a part of our Code of  Professional 
8 
Responsibility state that a lawyer “should refrain from all illegal and 
9 
morally reprehensible conduct.  Because of his position in society, even 
10 
minor violations of law by a lawyer may tend to lessen public confidence in 
11 
the legal profession.”  EC 1-5.  
12 
 
While respondent in this case had no lawyer-client relationship with 
13 
the child-victim, by virtue of his seniority, his status as a professional 
14 
person, and his friendship with the child-victim in a substance-abuse 
15 
rehabilitative program, respondent was in a position of dominance and the 
16 
child-victim was in a position of vulnerability.  Respondent had a moral 
17 
 
4
duty, a legal duty, and a duty as a representative of his profession not to 
1 
exploit that situation . 
2 
 
In Disciplinary Counsel v. Randall (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 149, 539 
3 
N.E.2d 160, a case involving a conviction of an attorney for gross sexual 
4 
imposition, we found that indefinite suspension was an appropriate 
5 
sanction.  Adopting the findings and recommendation of the board, we so 
6 
find in this case.  Respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
7 
law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly 
9 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK 
10 
and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
11 
 
12