Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart, 95 Ohio St.3d 135, 2002-Ohio-1758.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. LOCKHART. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart, 95 Ohio St.3d 135, 2002-Ohio-1758.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension with no credit for time 
served under previous suspension — Conviction for pretty theft — 
Petitioning for reinstatement and not informing court of felony theft 
charges or conviction for petty theft. 
(No. 2001-2177 — Submitted January 30, 2002 — Decided May 1, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-35. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On November 10, 1998, we suspended respondent, Carole Ann 
Lockhart of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0038474, from the practice 
of law for two years with one year suspended.  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart 
(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 7, 701 N.E.2d 686.  In our order of suspension, we 
conditioned her reinstatement on the payment of all fines and costs related to her 
actions and submission to a complete psychiatric examination by a physician.  In 
March 2000, respondent submitted to such an examination, and the physician 
reported that she was ready to return to the practice of law without restrictions. 
{¶2} 
Two months later, in May 2000, respondent stole merchandise 
from a retail clothing store in Toledo.  She was served with a warrant for felony 
theft on May 13, 2000, and appeared in court on that charge on May 22, 2000, and 
again on June 27, 2000.  On June 29, 2000, respondent entered a plea of no 
contest to a charge of petty theft and was found guilty and later sentenced to a 
ninety-day suspended jail term, a fine of $250, costs, and one year’s probation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
On June 29, 2000, respondent filed a petition for reinstatement 
with this court, signed and verified on June 15, 2000, in which she stated under 
oath that she possessed the moral qualifications required of an attorney at law and 
was a proper person to be readmitted to practice.  At the time she signed and 
verified the petition for reinstatement, respondent was under indictment for felony 
theft.  She did not notify us of the charges against her or her conviction.  On June 
8, 2001, we denied her application for reinstatement. 
{¶4} 
On April 9, 2001, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging that respondent’s conduct violated several provisions of the 
Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent answered, and the matter was 
submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court.  Based upon testimony received at a hearing and the 
stipulations of the parties, the panel found the facts as stated and concluded that 
respondent’s theft and conviction violated DR 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), 
and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶5} 
In mitigation, the panel noted that respondent previously had 
several health, family, and financial problems, that she had done significant 
volunteer work in the community, and that she showed true remorse for her 
actions.  The panel recommended that respondent be suspended indefinitely from 
the practice of law.  Adopting the findings and conclusions of the panel, the board 
recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law 
with no credit for time served under her previous suspension. 
{¶6} 
Upon review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from 
January Term, 2002 
3 
the practice of law with no credit for time served under her previous suspension.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
COOK, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
COOK, J., dissenting. 
{¶7} 
Because the respondent’s conduct warrants disbarment, I 
respectfully dissent. 
__________________ 
 
W. David Arnold and Thomas J. Szyperski, for relator. 
James D. Caruso, for respondent. 
__________________