Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Craig

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Craig, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1083.] 
 
 
 
 
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-1083 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. CRAIG. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Craig,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1083.] 
Attorney misconduct, including failing to keep client reasonably informed and 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2011-1721—Submitted November 16, 2011—Decided March 20, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-040. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Steve A. Craig of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0011244, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1976.  
On April 11, 2011, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged Craig with 
professional misconduct arising from his forging a client’s signature on an 
affidavit of transfer on death, notarizing that signature, and then filing the 
document with the Franklin County Recorder’s Office. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} 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 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 3} In the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, Craig stipulates to 
the facts as alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep his client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter), 4.1(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making 
a false statement of material fact or law), and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  
Relator has agreed to dismiss alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a 
lawyer to provide competent representation to a client) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law). 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulated that no aggravating factors exist and that 
mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a 
selfish motive, a timely good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of the 
misconduct, full and free disclosure and a cooperative attitude toward the 
disciplinary proceedings, and Craig’s good character and reputation aside from 
the charged misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).  
Based upon these substantial mitigating factors, the parties have stipulated that a 
public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for Craig’s misconduct. 
{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11, and they recommend that we adopt 
the agreement in its entirety.  We agree that Craig violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), 
4.1(a), and 8.4(c) and that, consistent with the parties’ agreement, this conduct 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
warrants a public reprimand.  Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement. 
{¶ 6} Accordingly, Craig is hereby publicly reprimanded for his 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), 4.1(a), and 8.4(c).  Costs are taxed to Craig. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar 
Counsel; and Robert D. Erney, for relator. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., and Christopher J. Weber, for 
respondent. 
______________________