Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldberg

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldberg, 94 Ohio St.3d 337, 2002-Ohio-885.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL ET AL. v. GOLDBERG. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldberg (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 337.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Conviction of mail 
fraud, bank fraud, and attempted tax evasion — Failure to make 
restitution to all victims of attorney’s crimes — Disbarment from Bar of 
Pennsylvania. 
(No. 01-1859 — Submitted December 12, 2001 — Decided February 27, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-68. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Respondent, Richard D. Goldberg, Attorney Registration 
No. 0005748, is now in the Federal Correctional Institute in Morgantown, West 
Virginia.  On September 10, 1999, during the pendency of certain criminal actions 
against respondent, we suspended his license to practice law in Ohio for an 
indefinite period.  In re Goldberg (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 1480, 716 N.E.2d 213.  
As a part of that order we required respondent to refund any unearned fees and 
account for any trust fund money in his control. 
 
On May 2, 2000, we denied respondent’s motion to resign from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  In re Resignation of Goldberg (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 
1504, 727 N.E.2d 926.  Respondent then offered to resign from the Bar of 
Pennsylvania, where he was also admitted to practice, and on August 1, 2000, the 
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania entered an order of “Disbarred on Consent” in 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldberg (2000), 563 Pa. 127, 758 A.2d 655. 
 
On December 29, 2000, relators, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 
Mahoning County Bar Association, and Trumbull County Bar Association, filed 
an amended three-count complaint charging respondent with several violations of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
the Code of Professional Responsibility.  After respondent answered, the matter 
was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“board”). 
 
Based on stipulations and exhibits, the panel found that in November 
1996, respondent, as attorney for the estate of Paul D. Fraelich, received checks 
payable to the executor of the estate totaling $742,630 from various defendants in 
a wrongful death case that he had brought on behalf of the estate.  Respondent did 
not notify any person connected with the estate that he had received the funds, did 
not distribute the funds, and, in fact, wrote to a beneficiary of the estate stating 
that the case was on appeal.  Respondent forged the signature of the executor of 
the estate on the checks he received and created false documents, including a false 
“satisfaction of judgment,” on which he also forged the signature of the executor, 
and a false “brief in opposition” purportedly prepared by one of the defendants. 
 
The panel also found that respondent defrauded the estate of Rachel Sloan 
of $400,000 during the time he represented that estate in a medical malpractice 
action.  In addition, the panel found that in 1991 and 1992, and in 1996 and 1997, 
respondent instructed his staff to forge his clients’ signatures on other settlement 
checks, which respondent then deposited in his own account. 
 
The panel found that as a result of these and other defalcations, respondent 
was charged on June 8, 1999, with seven counts of mail fraud and three counts of 
bank fraud in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, 
Eastern Division.  On August 27, 1999, respondent pled guilty to the seven counts 
of mail fraud and one count of bank fraud, and the government agreed to dismiss 
two counts of bank fraud. On November 8, 1999, respondent was directed to 
deposit the sum of $4,474,451 to the registry of the court to provide restitution for 
twenty-three former clients who were victims of his fraud.  On November 16, 
1999, he was sentenced by the United States District Court to forty-one months in 
prison followed by three years of supervised release. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
 
Respondent requested a delay from the district court of the 
commencement of his incarceration until January 9, 2000.  On February 11, 2000, 
the United States District Court held respondent in contempt and imposed an 
additional six months in prison for obtaining permission to travel to his godchild’s 
wedding when, in fact, he used the opportunity also to attend a New Year’s Eve 
party.  Then, in April 2000, respondent was resentenced for a total of fifty-seven 
months after pleading guilty to attempted tax evasion. 
 
Respondent then falsely represented to the district court that he was unable 
to deposit the entire sum needed for restitution, and he provided that court with an 
incomplete list of persons from whom he had taken funds.  The claims against the 
Client Security Fund of the Supreme Court of Ohio by forty claimants totaled 
more than $7,000,000.  As of September 7, 2001, respondent had made restitution 
to some, but not all, of the victims of his crimes. 
 
The panel concluded that the conduct of respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through the actions 
of another), 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving 
moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law), 7-102(A)(3) (in representing a client, a lawyer shall not conceal or 
knowingly fail to disclose that which he is required by law to reveal), 7-102(A)(4) 
(in representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly use perjured testimony or 
false evidence), 7-102(A)(5) (in representing a client, a lawyer shall not 
knowingly make a false statement of law or fact), 9-102(B)(1) (a lawyer shall 
promptly notify a client of the receipt of  funds), and  9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall 
promptly deliver to the client funds or property to which the client is entitled). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be disbarred.  The board adopted 
the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel, and further 
recommended that the Supreme Court notify all state and federal courts of its final 
disciplinary order. 
 
Having reviewed the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice 
of law in Ohio.  Inasmuch as this order will be published in the Ohio Official 
Reports, we find it unnecessary to separately notify all state and federal courts of 
this discipline.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator Office of Disciplinary Counsel; Daniel 
Keating, for relator Trumbull County Bar Association; and Robert S. Bouffard, for 
relator Mahoning County Bar Association. 
 
Charles L. Richards, for respondent, and Richard D. Goldberg, pro se. 
__________________