Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gottesman

Citation: 2007-Ohio-4791

Docket Number: 20071057

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-09-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gottesman, 115 Ohio St.3d 222, 2007-Ohio-4791.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. GOTTESMAN. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gottesman, 
 115 Ohio St.3d 222, 2007-Ohio-4791.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Consent to discipline — Notarizing a signature 
without witnessing it — Public reprimand. 
(No. 2007-1057 — Submitted July 10, 2007 — Decided September 20, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-012. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Zachary Gottesman of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0058675, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has recommended 
that we publicly reprimand respondent, based on findings that he violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, 
dishonesty, or misrepresentation) by notarizing the signature on a power of 
attorney without actually witnessing the signature.  On review, we find that 
respondent committed this violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility 
and agree that a public reprimand is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged respondent with the 
cited misconduct.  Thereafter, the parties submitted a consent-to-discipline 
agreement, and they jointly recommended a public reprimand.  See Section 11 of 
the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings 
Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD 
Proc.Reg.”).  A panel of three board members accepted the agreement, found the 
stipulated DR 1-102(A)(4) violation, and recommended the proposed public 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
reprimand.  The board adopted the findings of misconduct and recommended 
sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} On March 14, 2006, attorney William I. Farrell went to 
respondent’s law office without his wife and asked respondent to notarize a power 
of attorney that Farrell’s wife had purportedly signed.  Trusting that the signature 
was genuine, respondent notarized the power of attorney, swearing in the jurat 
that he had witnessed the wife’s signature.  In fact, Farrell’s wife had not signed 
the power of attorney.  Farrell subsequently used the power of attorney to obtain a 
line of credit, secured by the Farrells’ residence, for $75,000. 
{¶ 4} By compromising his duties as a notary public, respondent violated 
DR 1-102(A)(4). 
Sanction 
{¶ 5} In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dougherty, 105 Ohio St.3d 307, 2005-
Ohio-1825, 825 N.E.2d 1094, we publicly reprimanded a lawyer for notarizing a 
liquor-license application without witnessing the applicant’s signing of the 
document, and the signature turned out to be a forgery.  We criticized the lawyer 
for ignoring the duties of a notary public to ensure the authenticity of official 
documents and found the lawyer in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). The lawyer did 
not, however, forge the signature or know of the forgery, nor had the lawyer 
engaged in a deceitful course of conduct beyond failing to witness signatures as 
required.  For that reason and because the lawyer had no prior disciplinary record 
and had cooperated in the disciplinary process, among other mitigating factors, 
we did not order the actual suspension usually warranted for a lawyer's dishonesty 
under Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 
N.E.2d 237, syllabus.  Dougherty at ¶ 15.  Accord Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Russell, 
114 Ohio St.3d 171, 2007-Ohio-3603, 870 N.E.2d 1164, ¶ 10. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
{¶ 6} Respondent committed the same infraction as did the lawyer in 
Dougherty. Moreover, he has no prior disciplinary record, he did not commit this 
misconduct for his own benefit, and he cooperated in the disciplinary process.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (d).  A public reprimand is therefore 
appropriate. 
{¶ 7} Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded for having violated 
DR 1-102(A)(4).  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Ernest F. McAdams Jr. and Kevin P. Roberts, for relator. 
 
George D. Jonson, for respondent. 
______________________