Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Newman

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Newman, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5034.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-5034 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. NEWMAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Newman,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5034.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite license suspension. 
(No. 2009-1917 — Submitted August 10, 2010 — Decided October 21, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-041. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, George W. Newman III of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0050769, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in October 
1964.  In June 2009, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with violations of the Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information from a 
disciplinary authority), 8.3(a) (requiring an attorney to report to disciplinary 
authority his own violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raise a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
question about his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), and 8.4(b) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness). 
{¶ 2} Although the complaint was served on July 22, 2009, in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B), respondent failed to file an answer.  
Therefore, in August 2009, relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(F). 
{¶ 3} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
referred the default motion to a master commissioner, who made findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and a recommendation that the board indefinitely suspend 
respondent from the practice of law.  The board adopted the report and submitted 
the matter to this court.  We found, however, that the record lacked sufficient 
sworn or certified evidence to support the allegations of misconduct, and we 
remanded the cause to the board for further proceedings consistent with our 
opinion.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Newman, 124 Ohio St.3d 505, 2010-Ohio-928, 
924 N.E.2d 359, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 4} On remand, relator amended its motion for default and submitted 
certified copies of respondent’s indictment, bill of particulars, plea agreement, 
and judgment entry of sentencing, as well as the affidavit of its investigator.  
Based upon this evidence, the master commissioner and the board once again 
recommend that we indefinitely suspend respondent. 
{¶ 5} We agree that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), 8.3(a), and 
8.4(b), as found by the board, and that his conduct warrants an indefinite 
suspension. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} The board found that in October 2006, respondent was indicted on 
seven counts of passing bad checks in violation of R.C. 2913.11(B) and three 
counts of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3).  A bill of particulars alleged 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
that he had engaged in a scheme by which he deposited checks drawn on closed 
accounts or accounts with insufficient funds into other bank accounts and then 
withdrew cash from those artificially inflated accounts, causing losses of 
$5,809.67 to Fifth Third Bank, $11,804 to U.S. Bank, and $4,459.99 to 
Huntington Bank. 
{¶ 7} Respondent pleaded guilty to three counts of theft, felonies of the 
fifth degree, in September 2007.  The following month, he was sentenced to three 
years of community control and was ordered to pay restitution of $4,454.59 to 
Huntington Bank and $5,804.57 to Fifth Third Bank.  He failed to notify any Ohio 
attorney disciplinary authority of his conviction. 
{¶ 8} When the board brought respondent’s conviction to our attention, 
we imposed an interim felony suspension from the practice of law against 
respondent on February 2, 2009, and referred the matter to relator for 
investigation and commencement of this disciplinary proceeding.  In re Newman, 
120 Ohio St.3d 1500, 2009-Ohio-381, 900 N.E.2d 618. 
{¶ 9} Respondent did not respond to the resulting disciplinary 
investigation, despite relator’s attempts to communicate with him via certified 
mail and telephone, and he did not file an answer to the complaint.  The board 
also noted that respondent has failed to submit an affidavit confirming his 
compliance with our February 2, 2009 interim suspension order.  The board 
concluded that these acts violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), 8.3(a), and 8.4(b). 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant 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.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.   
{¶ 11} In this case, respondent has committed illegal acts that adversely 
reflect on his honesty and trustworthiness by stealing approximately $22,000 from 
three banks and by failing to respond to the resulting disciplinary investigation.  
In aggravation, the board has found that he failed to cooperate in the disciplinary 
process.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e).  And in mitigation of punishment, this is 
respondent’s only disciplinary violation in more than 45 years of practice.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
{¶ 12} “An attorney who has been convicted of felony theft offenses has 
violated the basic professional duty to act with honesty and integrity.”  Cincinnati 
Bar Assn. v. Blankemeyer, 109 Ohio St.3d 156, 2006-Ohio-2038, 846 N.E.2d 523, 
¶ 12. “One of the fundamental tenets of the professional responsibility of a lawyer 
is that [the lawyer] should maintain a degree of personal and professional integrity 
that meets the highest standard.  The integrity of the profession can be maintained 
only if the conduct of the individual attorney is above reproach.  [The lawyer] 
should refrain from any illegal conduct.  Anything short of this lessens public 
confidence in the legal profession — because obedience to the law exemplifies 
respect for the law.” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 77, 81, 58 
O.O.2d 151, 278 N.E.2d 670. 
{¶ 13} We have imposed an indefinite suspension for similar misconduct.  
See, e.g.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Dragelevich, 106 Ohio St.3d 478, 2005-Ohio-
5515, 835 N.E.2d 1261, ¶ 3, 7 (imposing indefinite suspension on attorney who 
knowingly caused the odometer on a vehicle to be altered to reflect less than the 
actual mileage, a felony);  Disciplinary Counsel v. Woods (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 
245, 247, 28 OBR 325, 503 N.E.2d 746 (imposing indefinite suspension on 
attorney convicted of theft, forgery and uttering); Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Baxter 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
(1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 82, 83, 4 OBR 263, 446 N.E.2d 1121 (imposing indefinite 
suspension on attorney involved in a check-kiting scheme when $16,000 in 
restitution remained unpaid). 
{¶ 14} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 
we adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusion that respondent violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), 8.3(a), and 8.4(b).  Accordingly, George W. Newman is 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio.  As a 
condition of reinstatement, respondent shall pay restitution of $4,454.59 to 
Huntington Bank and $5,804.57 to Fifth Third Bank.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Naomi C. Dallob and Edwin Wilhite Patterson III, for relator. 
______________________