Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Gambrel

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel  v. Gambrel, 94 Ohio St.3d 10, 2001-Ohio-6979.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL ET AL. v. GAMBREL. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Gambrel (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 10.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Conviction for mail 
fraud conspiracy — Settling case with insurance company based on 
insider information obtained in exchange for a kickback at the 
conclusion of the case. 
(No. 01-1177 — Submitted August 28, 2001 — Decided December 19, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-82. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On February 7, 2000, in the United States District Court for 
the Northern District of Ohio, respondent, Paul F. Gambrel of Poland, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0020716, pled guilty to mail fraud conspiracy in 
violation of Section 371, Title 18, U.S.Code.  The court sentenced respondent to 
three years’ probation, a $1,500 fine, and 250 hours of community service.  On 
May 31, 2000, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), we imposed on respondent an 
interim suspension from the practice of law.  In re Gambrel (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 
1416, 729 N.E.2d 387. 
 
On September 29, 2000, relators, Office of Disciplinary Counsel and 
Mahoning County Bar Association, filed a complaint charging that respondent’s 
actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent answered, 
admitting the facts alleged in the complaint, and the matter was submitted to a 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”). 
 
Based on stipulations submitted after the parties waived a hearing, the 
panel found that respondent, who was negotiating for a client with Nationwide 
Insurance Company, was approached by Attorney Lawrence Seidita.  Seidita told 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
respondent that in a previous case, he had obtained a favorable settlement from 
Nationwide based on inside information provided by a Nationwide claims 
adjuster, attorney Walter D. Hartsock.  Seidita told respondent that Hartsock 
would help respondent obtain a favorable settlement for his client if respondent 
would agree to pay a $2,500 kickback to Hartsock.  Respondent agreed.  
Respondent settled the case based on inside information obtained from Hartsock 
and paid $2,500 to Hartsock at the conclusion of the case. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s action 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), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial 
to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in 
conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The panel 
recommended that respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.  
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
 
Having reviewed the record in this case, we note that attorney Seidita 
resigned from the practice of law.  In re Resignation of Seidita (2000), 90 Ohio 
St.3d 1209, 735 N.E.2d 894.  See, also, Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartsock (2001), 
94 Ohio St.3d 18, 759 N.E.2d 778, announced today.  Upon consideration of the 
record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board.  
Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Gloria J. Sigman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 
January Term, 2001 
3 
 
Joseph R. Young, for relator Mahoning County Bar Association. 
 
J. Gerald Ingram, for respondent. 
__________________