Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Christ

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Christ. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Christ (1996), ____ Ohio St.3d. _____.] 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Accepting private 
employment in a matter upon the merits of which the attorney has 
acted in a judicial capacity. 
 
(No. 95-1670 -- Submitted September 27, 1995 -- Decided January 17, 
1996.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-07. 
 
In a complaint filed on February 6, 1995, relator, Office of Disciplinary 
Counsel, charged respondent, Paul Steve Christ of Mansfield, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0008150, with having violated, inter alia, DR 9-101(A) 
(accepting private employment in a matter upon the merits of which he has acted 
in a judicial capacity).  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court heard the matter on June 8, 1995. 
 
The parties stipulated to the facts underlying the charged misconduct at the 
hearing.  The stipulations established that respondent granted an uncontested 
divorce to Valarie Daniel and her former husband in April 1987, while respondent 
was employed as a judge of the Richland County Common Pleas Court Division of 
Domestic Relations.  In June 1994, respondent represented Daniel in the course of 
his private practice and filed a Motion to Modify Parental Rights and 
Responsibilities against her former husband in the Richland County Common 
Pleas Court, Division of Domestic Relations.  Counsel for Daniel’s former 
husband moved the court for respondent’s removal, but her motion was overruled, 
and respondent continued as Daniel’s attorney until the parties resolved the 
custody and child support dispute in January 1995. 
 
Respondent explained at the hearing that his judicial involvement in the 
Daniels’ uncontested divorce had been limited to signing the final judgment entry 
and that he had considered this act perfunctory and insufficient to bar his 
subsequent private employment in the matter.  However, the panel concluded that 
respondent had committed a “technical” violation of DR 9-101(A) because he “did 
act in his official capacity as a judge, [he] signed the entry, and * * * seven years 
later [he] represented one of the litigants in a * * * Motion to Modify custody in 
the same case ***.” 
 
In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel considered the 
testimony of two local attorneys who had known respondent for years and had 
great respect for his professional competence and integrity.  The panel also 
considered that respondent had never before been the subject of disciplinary 
proceedings.  The panel recommended the sanction suggested by relator -- a public 
reprimand.  
 
The board adopted the panel’s report, including its findings of fact, 
conclusions of law and recommended sanction. 
 
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Mary L. Cibella, for respondent. 
 
Per Curiam.  Upon review of the record, we concur in the board’s finding of 
misconduct and its recommendation.  Respondent is therefore publicly 
reprimanded for having violated DR 9-101(A).  Costs taxed to respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and 
COOK, JJ., concur.