Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Asante

Citation: 2012-Ohio-3906

Docket Number: 2010-1782

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-09-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Asante, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3906.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-3906 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ASANTE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Asante,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3906.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of immigration law—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2010-1782—Submitted February 8, 2012—Decided September 4, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-031. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Lilian Antwiwaa Asante of Accra, Ghana, Attorney 
Registration No. 0079520, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2005.  
Relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint in April 2010, charging Asante 
with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  On October 15, 
2010, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline issued a report 
pursuant to Section 11(D) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”) recommending that this court accept the parties’ 
consent-to-discipline agreement.  The parties had stipulated that Asante had 
violated numerous provisions of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and that 
a two-year suspension from the practice of law was the appropriate sanction. 
{¶ 2} We rejected the board’s recommendation and remanded the matter 
to the board “for further proceedings, including consideration of a harsher 
sanction.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Asante, 127 Ohio St.3d 1495, 2011-Ohio-18, 
939 N.E.2d 864.  On remand, the parties submitted stipulations of fact and 
misconduct, and an appointed panel conducted a hearing.  Asante appeared 
remotely from Ghana by telephone.  The panel adopted the parties’ stipulations, 
and after considering Asante’s testimony and the parties’ posthearing briefs, the 
panel recommended that Asante be indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law.  The board adopted the panel’s report. 
{¶ 3} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and 
we adopt the board’s recommendation that Asante be indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Asante entered the United States from Ghana on August 2, 2002, 
to attend the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.  Asante was married 
to Kwadwo Asante, who entered the United States from Ghana on August 26, 
2002, to attend Case Western Reserve University.  Their marriage was dissolved 
in Ghana on May 5, 2004. 
{¶ 5} Asante was admitted to the practice of law on November 7, 2005, 
and began practicing immigration law in Columbus, Ohio.  On February 25, 2006, 
Asante married Randy Weight, who was a United States citizen residing in 
Florida.  Asante and Weight submitted an application for Asante to become a 
permanent legal resident of the United States on September 18, 2006, filed 
additional forms in January 2009, and attended an immigration interview in 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
Florida on June 18, 2009.  During her marriage to Weight, Asante resided in Ohio 
with Kwadwo Asante.  Asante’s child with Kwadwo Asante was born in October 
2008. 
{¶ 6} On August 4, 2009, Asante was indicted in the United States 
District Court, Southern District of Ohio, for entering into a fraudulent marriage 
for purposes of evading United States immigration law, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 
1325(c) and 18 U.S.C. 2.  Asante pleaded guilty to a violation of 8 U.S.C. 
1325(c).  Asante was sentenced to two years of probation, and she stipulated to an 
order of removal.  Asante departed from the United States on January 28, 2010, 
and returned to Ghana.  We suspended Asante’s license to practice law, pursuant 
to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), due to her felony conviction.  In re Asante, 124 Ohio 
St.3d 1496, 2010-Ohio-765, 922 N.E.2d 230. 
{¶ 7} The board agreed with the parties’ stipulations that Asante’s 
conduct prior to February 1, 2007, involved violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 
1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-
102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects 
on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  Further, the board agreed with the 
parties’ stipulations that Asante’s conduct after February 1, 2007, involved 
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal 
act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness), 8.4(c) 
(prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 
8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 
8.4 (h) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to 
practice law). 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we weigh 
evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 
875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  In making a final determination, we consider a number of 
factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 
2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  Because each disciplinary case is unique, 
we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take all relevant 
factors into account in determining what sanction to impose. BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B). 
{¶ 9} In terms of mitigating factors, the board found that Asante had no 
prior record of professional misconduct, that she provided full and free disclosure 
during disciplinary counsel’s investigation, that she was cooperative during the 
disciplinary proceedings, and that she had suffered the imposition of other 
penalties and sanctions.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (f).  In terms of 
aggravating factors, the board found that Asante had acted with a dishonest or 
selfish motive.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  Asante requested a sanction of two 
years of suspension from the practice of law, with credit for the period of her 
interim felony suspension.  Disciplinary counsel requested that Asante be 
indefinitely suspended with no credit for the interim suspension.  The board 
agreed with disciplinary counsel’s request for indefinite suspension, and neither 
party has filed objections to the board’s recommendation. 
{¶ 10} This court has commonly imposed indefinite suspensions for 
similar violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct involving criminal 
conduct.  E.g. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Hunter, 130 Ohio St.3d 355, 2011-Ohio-
5788, 958 N.E.2d 567, ¶ 1-2, 21 (indefinitely suspending an attorney following 
his felony conviction for failing to report a cash payment in excess of $10,000 in 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
his law practice to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network as required by 
federal law and additional misconduct of neglecting client matters and 
mishandling client funds); Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 128 Ohio St.3d 390, 
2011-Ohio-957, 944 N.E.2d 1166, ¶ 5, 16 (indefinitely suspending an attorney 
convicted of conspiracy to defraud the IRS, making false tax returns, and 
corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede an IRS investigation); Cincinnati 
Bar Assn. v. Kellogg, 126 Ohio St.3d 360, 2010-Ohio-3285, 933 N.E.2d 1085, 
¶ 2, 26 (indefinitely suspending an attorney convicted of money laundering, 
conspiracy to commit money laundering, and conspiracy to obstruct proceedings 
before both the United States Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug 
Administration); Disciplinary Counsel v. Gittinger, 125 Ohio St.3d 467, 2010-
Ohio-1830, 929 N.E.2d 410, ¶ 33, 35, 49 (indefinitely suspending an attorney 
convicted of money laundering and conspiracy to commit bank fraud); 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett, 124 Ohio St.3d 314, 2010-Ohio-313, 921 N.E.2d 
1064, ¶ 2, 28 (indefinitely suspending an attorney convicted of illegally 
structuring currency transactions to evade taxation); and Dayton Bar Assn v. 
Brunner, 91 Ohio St.3d 398, 746 N.E.2d 596 (2001) (indefinitely suspending an 
attorney convicted of bank fraud and conspiracy to commit tax fraud, arising from 
a real estate transaction). 
{¶ 11} Here, within months of being admitted to the practice of law in 
Ohio, Asante began to engage in a years-long series of fraudulent acts against the 
United States government for personal gain.  Moreover, Asante attempted to 
defraud the United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services while 
she herself was running an immigration-law practice.  If a lawyer assisting people 
with the immigration process becomes enmeshed in immigration fraud herself, 
“ ‘it is a stain upon the profession and a detriment to the public’s view of 
lawyers.’ ”  Hunter at ¶ 17, quoting the relator’s brief.  Having considered the 
totality of the circumstances surrounding Asante’s misconduct, the applicable 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed for similar 
misconduct, we conclude that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction 
for Asante’s violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  We therefore adopt 
the board’s recommendation. 
{¶ 12} Accordingly, Asante is indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law in the state of Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Asante. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather L. Hissom, for 
relator. 
Lilian Asante, pro se. 
______________________