Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Plesich

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Plesich, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4843.] 
 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-4843 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. PLESICH. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. Plesich, Slip Opinion No.  
2019-Ohio-4843.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—Two-
year suspension. 
(No. 2019-0806—Submitted August 6, 2019—Decided November 27, 2019.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2018-057. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Gregory Thomas Plesich, of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0007642, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1973.  On 
June 15, 2018, we suspended his license on an interim basis after receiving notice 
that he had been convicted of a felony for attempting to evade and defeat the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
payment of federal taxes.  In re Plesich, 153 Ohio St.3d 1233, 2018-Ohio-2306, 
108 N.E.3d 1096. 
{¶ 2} In November 2018, relator, Akron Bar Association, charged Plesich 
with violating the Rules of Professional Conduct based on the facts that led to his 
conviction.  Plesich stipulated to the charged misconduct, and the parties jointly 
recommended that he serve a two-year suspension, with credit for the time he has 
served under his interim felony suspension.  After a hearing before a panel of the 
Board of Professional Conduct—and the parties’ submission of supplemental 
stipulations—the board issued a report finding that Plesich had engaged in the 
stipulated misconduct and recommending that we adopt the parties’ proposed 
sanction.  Neither party objected to the board’s report. 
{¶ 3} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of 
misconduct and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} In September 2017, the federal government charged Plesich with one 
count of violating 26 U.S.C. 7201 and 18 U.S.C. 2 for willfully aiding and abetting 
clients in their attempt to evade the payment of their federal taxes.  The indictment 
set forth the following allegations.  In 2009, Plesich began representing Lawrence 
E. and Angela G. Tipton in a tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), 
which subsequently sent Plesich notice of outstanding tax liabilities and various 
collection actions involving either one or both of the Tiptons.  In July 2013, 
Lawrence Tipton gave Plesich a $117,882.42 check representing Tipton’s proceeds 
from the sale of real property, and Plesich deposited those funds into his client trust 
account.  In August 2013, Plesich similarly deposited into his client trust account a 
$79,051 check that Tipton had received for an insurance claim on his home.  Over 
the following year, Plesich wrote or caused to be written 29 checks from his client 
trust account—ranging in amounts from $3,000 to $7,500—made payable to 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
Angela Tipton.  In doing so, the government alleged, Plesich aided the Tiptons in 
their attempt to evade payment of their outstanding tax liabilities. 
{¶ 5} After a four-day trial in February 2018, a jury found Plesich guilty.  
In June 2018, a federal judge sentenced him to three years of probation and ordered 
him to pay $196,934.21 in restitution to the IRS, a $10,000 fine, and a $100 
assessment—all of which Plesich paid within three months after his sentencing. 
{¶ 6} At his disciplinary hearing, Plesich admitted to depositing Lawrence 
Tipton’s two checks into his client trust account and issuing—or authorizing his 
assistant to issue—the 29 checks to Angela Tipton.  Plesich maintained, however, 
that he did not issue those checks with the motivation to help the Tiptons evade 
payment of their federal taxes.  Plesich testified that he accepted the two checks 
from Lawrence Tipton and then disbursed the money upon his clients’ requests 
without questioning them or discussing with them the purpose of the transactions.  
Regardless, Plesich stipulated that the jury in his criminal case determined that he 
had aided and abetted the Tiptons in tax evasion because he knew they owed past-
due taxes, he did not provide any legal services for the funds they had delivered to 
him, and he deliberately “clos[ed] his eyes to what was obvious” and “paid those 
funds on a monthly basis to his clients.”  In addition, Plesich stipulated that his 
failing to object to his clients’ requests and to notify the IRS of the existence of the 
money “certainly could be considered an effort to defraud the federal government.”  
He also admitted that his actions were “absolutely 100 percent wrong.” 
{¶ 7} Based on this conduct and Plesich’s conviction, the parties stipulated 
and the board found that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(d)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from counseling a client to engage, or assisting a client, in conduct that the lawyer 
knows is illegal or fraudulent), 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an 
illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness), and 
8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 8} We agree with the board’s findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 10} As aggravating factors, the board found that Plesich engaged in a 
pattern of misconduct by issuing the 29 checks over a one-year period.  See Gov.Bar 
R. V(13)(B)(3).  The board also noted that Plesich misused his client trust account 
in the course of his criminal conduct. 
{¶ 11} In mitigation, the board found that Plesich has no prior discipline in 
his 46-year legal career, he lacked a selfish motive in that he did not receive any 
fees or benefit from the transactions with the Tiptons, he had made full disclosures 
to the board and had a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and 
criminal sanctions have been imposed for the same misconduct.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(1), (2), (4), and (6).  The board also noted that Plesich had presented 28 
letters and the testimony of three witnesses attesting to his good character and 
reputation.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(5). 
{¶ 12} To support its recommended sanction, the board found two cases 
particularly instructive:  Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 128 Ohio St.3d 390, 2011-
Ohio-957, 944 N.E.2d 1166, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Jacobs, 140 Ohio St.3d 
2, 2014-Ohio-2137, 14 N.E.3d 984. 
{¶ 13} In Smith, the attorney concealed approximately $250,000 in annual 
income from the IRS for several years and during an audit, allowed his agent to 
falsely state that he had no source of income other than that reported on his tax 
returns.  A federal court convicted the attorney of making false tax returns, 
conspiracy to defraud the IRS, and corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede 
an IRS investigation.  The court sentenced him to one year and one day in prison 
January Term, 2019 
 
5
and ordered him to pay the IRS almost $400,000 in restitution.  As aggravating 
factors, we noted that the attorney had acted with a dishonest or selfish motive and 
engaged in a pattern of misconduct.  In mitigation, the attorney lacked a prior 
disciplinary record, had cooperated in the disciplinary process, had submitted 
evidence of good character and reputation, and had been subjected to criminal 
penalties for the same misconduct.  Considering that the attorney had already served 
almost two years under his interim felony suspension and that he had accepted 
responsibility for his misconduct, we indefinitely suspended him, with credit for 
the time he had served, and imposed conditions on his reinstatement, including that 
he enter into an agreement with the government regarding restitution, of which he 
had paid only $2,000 at the time of the panel hearing. 
{¶ 14} In Jacobs, the attorney filed four false income-tax returns, resulting 
in unpaid taxes of $75,385.  He pleaded guilty to making and subscribing false tax 
returns, and a federal court sentenced him to one year and one day in prison and 
ordered him to pay a $10,000 fine and a $100 assessment.  As aggravating factors, 
we noted that he had a dishonest or selfish motive and had engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct.  In mitigation, the attorney lacked a prior disciplinary record, had 
cooperated in the disciplinary process, had submitted evidence of good character 
and reputation, had acknowledged the wrongful nature of his conduct, had paid all 
delinquent taxes before his sentencing, and had been subjected to criminal sanctions 
for the same misconduct.  We also noted that his actions had not harmed any clients.  
Considering these mitigating factors, we suspended the attorney for two years, with 
credit for the time he had served under his interim felony suspension. 
{¶ 15} Here, the board noted that unlike the attorneys in Smith and Jacobs, 
Plesich had not attempted to evade his own tax liabilities or personally benefited 
from his actions.  And considering that the federal court determined that Plesich 
did not deserve prison time and that he has accepted responsibility for his actions 
and fully paid the fine, restitution, and assessment amounts, the board agreed to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
adopt the parties’ recommended sanction of a two-year suspension with credit for 
the time Plesich has served under his interim felony suspension. 
{¶ 16} We conclude that the facts and circumstances here are more similar 
to those in Jacobs than those in Smith, which involved more egregious attorney 
misconduct, including an attempt to obstruct an IRS investigation.  We therefore 
accept the board’s recommendation.  A sanction similar to that imposed in Jacobs 
is warranted in this case.  See also Disciplinary Counsel v. Lawrence, 147 Ohio 
St.3d 315, 2016-Ohio-4605, 65 N.E.3d 711 (adopting a consent-to-discipline 
agreement and suspending an attorney for two years, with credit for time served 
under an interim felony suspension, after the attorney had been convicted of three 
counts of filing false tax returns). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 17} For the reasons explained above, Gregory Thomas Plesich is 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with credit for the time 
he has served under his interim suspension, which began on June 15, 2018.  Costs 
are taxed to Plesich. 
Judgment accordingly. 
FRENCH, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY and FISCHER, JJ., would not grant credit for 
time served under the interim suspension. 
_________________ 
Alfred E. Schrader; and Wayne M. Rice, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Ronald M. Martin and Michele Morris, for respondent. 
_________________