Title: Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ezzone

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ezzone, 102 Ohio St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio-1774.] 
 
 
LAKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. EZZONE. 
[Cite as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ezzone, 102 Ohio St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio-1774.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension stayed on conditions — 
Conviction for failing to file a federal income tax return. 
(No. 2003-2201 — Submitted February 3, 2004 — Decided April 21, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-056. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Donald J. Ezzone of Willoughby, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0021000, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1975.  On June 9, 
2003, relator, Lake County Bar Association, charged that respondent had been 
convicted of failing to file a federal income tax return and thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation).  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints 
and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶2} 
According to the parties’ agreement, respondent pled guilty on 
January 22, 2002, to one misdemeanor count of failing to file an income tax return 
in violation of Section 7203, Title 26, U.S.Code.  He was sentenced to home 
confinement for six months and placed on probation for one year.  Respondent 
has since submitted a payment plan proposal to the IRS and is awaiting that 
agency’s response. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
The parties also stipulated in the agreement to mitigating factors 
for the panel’s consideration.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  The parties stipulated 
that respondent has no prior record of professional discipline, has cooperated fully 
in relator’s investigation, and has at all times accepted responsibility for his 
misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  Moreover, respondent’s 
misconduct did not involve lies to a court or client, Dayton Bar Assn. v. Millonig 
(1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 403, 704 N.E.2d 568 (implying that the most serious 
violations of DR 1-102[A][4] involve dishonesty toward a client or court), he has 
already been penalized for his actions by the criminal justice system, BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f), and he was embroiled at the time of his misconduct in 
protracted divorce and custody proceedings.  Finally, respondent’s character and 
reputation are highly regarded by the legal community, as evidenced by the 
numerous letters of reference submitted by his colleagues.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(e). 
{¶4} 
As a sanction for his misconduct, the parties jointly suggested that 
respondent receive a one-year suspension from the practice of law, with the entire 
period stayed on the conditions that he resolve his outstanding tax obligation with 
the IRS and commit no further misconduct.  In addition, the parties proposed 
probationary supervision and that respondent periodically report to a person or 
entity designated by the board and verify his satisfaction of the delinquent tax 
debt. 
{¶5} 
The panel accepted the consent-to-discipline agreement, thereby 
finding that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and recommending the 
sanction submitted by the parties.  The board also accepted the agreement, found 
the cited misconduct, and recommended, in effect, that respondent’s law license 
be suspended for one year and that the entire suspension be stayed on the 
specified conditions. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
{¶6} 
Based on the consent-to-discipline agreement, we find that 
respondent’s conviction of failing to file his federal income tax return constitutes 
a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).  In light of the mitigating factors, we also agree 
that a one-year suspension, stayed on conditions and with supervised probation, is 
appropriate.  Disciplinary Counsel. v. Markijohn, 99 Ohio St.3d 489, 2003-Ohio-
4129, 794 N.E.2d 24. 
{¶7} 
Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for one year; however, this suspension is stayed on the conditions that 
(1) he serve a one-year probation period during which he resolves his federal tax 
debt and periodically reports to verify his progress to a supervisory person or 
entity designated by the board, and (2) he commit no further misconduct during 
the stayed suspension.  If respondent violates either condition of this stay, the stay 
will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire suspension period.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Theodore M. Mann Jr. Law Offices and Theodore M. Mann Jr., for relator. 
 
John A. Fatica and Michael C. Hennenberg, for respondent. 
__________________