Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Kafantaris

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Kafantaris, 99 Ohio St.3d 94, 2003-Ohio-2477.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. KAFANTARIS. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Kafantaris, 99 Ohio St.3d 94, 2003-Ohio-
2477.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with six months of 
suspension stayed on conditions — Lying in an answer to a civil complaint 
filed against him, in his deposition, and in an affidavit submitted to the 
trial court about his relationship with his employees. 
(No. 2003-0381 — Submitted April 16, 2003 — Decided May 16, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-15. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On March 26, 2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a 
complaint charging respondent, George Nicholas Kafantaris of Warren, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0009748, with several violations of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  The respondent answered, admitting some facts and 
disputing others.  On November 22, 2002, a panel of the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline conducted a hearing.  At the hearing, the parties 
submitted to the panel an agreed stipulation of facts, stipulated violations, 
stipulated exhibits, and a stipulated jointly recommended sanction of a suspension 
from the practice of law for 12 months, with six months stayed.  Additionally, 
respondent testified, and three mitigation witnesses also testified on his behalf. 
{¶2} 
The stipulations and evidence before the panel established that in 
May 1981, respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio.  In July 1999, 
Karen Longstreth, a former employee of respondent, filed a civil action in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
common pleas court against respondent as well as a grievance with relator based 
on the same facts. 
{¶3} 
In her civil complaint as amended, Longstreth alleged sexual 
harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and battery.  She 
specifically asserted that on October 20, 1998, respondent appeared unexpectedly 
at her home and “sexually assaulted” and “forcibly raped” her, behavior that she 
characterized as “intentional, non-consensual, sexually violent conduct.” 
{¶4} 
In August 1999, respondent answered the complaint and described 
his October 1998 visit to Longstreth’s home but denied the allegations of sexual 
harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and battery.  Respondent 
specifically denied any physical contact with her. 
{¶5} 
In October 1999, respondent testified in a deposition and denied 
that on the day in question “he kissed, had physical or sexual contact or 
intercourse with Longstreth in her apartment.”  Respondent also denied in his 
deposition that he “had ever had any type of sexual relationship” or “sexual 
contact with an employee.” 
{¶6} 
Subsequent 
DNA 
analysis 
established 
a 
match 
between 
respondent’s blood and a semen stain on a skirt belonging to Longstreth.  
Thereafter, in March 2001, respondent filed a motion for a continuance in this 
civil action and signed an affidavit, appended to the motion, in which he 
continued to deny any sexual conduct with Longstreth.  The trial court granted a 
brief continuance. 
{¶7} 
During the trial, which started on April 30, 2001, another ex-
employee of respondent testified that she had worked for respondent in 2000 and 
2001, and also at times between 1994 and 1998.  The witness testified to a sexual 
relationship with respondent during her employment. 
{¶8} 
Thereafter, respondent testified at trial that he did have a 
consensual sexual relationship with the witness while she was an employee.  
January Term, 2003 
3 
Further, respondent admitted that certain denials he made in his pretrial deposition 
relating to kissing, physical contact, or sexual relations with employees were 
untrue.  He additionally admitted that he had had “sex a couple of times” with a 
third employee.  Respondent also testified that in October 1998, when he visited 
Longstreth at her home, they had had consensual sexual relations. 
{¶9} 
After deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of 
respondent on all counts of Longstreth’s complaint.  Thereafter, the trial court 
granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees 
and expenses.  The Court of Appeals for Trumbull County recently affirmed the 
trial court’s judgment awarding plaintiff her attorney fees, expenses, and a new 
trial.  Longstreth v. Kafantaris (Feb. 24, 2003), Trumbull App. No. 2001-T-0111, 
2003 WL 470213. 
{¶10} Based on the evidence and the stipulated violations, the panel 
found that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), DR 1-102(A)(5) 
(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and DR 7-
102(A)(3) (concealing or knowingly failing to disclose that which he is required 
by law to reveal). 
{¶11} In mitigation, the panel noted and the parties stipulated that 
respondent had fully cooperated with relator throughout this matter.  Further, 
respondent testified on his own behalf and described his history and background, 
including his arrival in this country as a young immigrant from Greece, the 
struggles he underwent in school not knowing English as a native language, and 
his efforts to become assimilated into American life. The panel noted that 
respondent was “very close to his four sons and embarrassed that they had to face 
this [issue] with their friends at church, at school and in the community.  He said 
that he was ‘overwhelmed by shame’ ” over the matter. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶12} A trial court judge, another attorney, and respondent’s brother 
testified as character witnesses on respondent’s behalf.  Additionally, fellow 
lawyers and respondent’s friends and relatives, in 20 separate letters submitted to 
the panel, attested to respondent’s honesty, character, and reputation.  The panel 
found that this evidence “spoke eloquently to the fact” that respondent “was a 
well respected, highly regarded attorney and respected member of the general 
community.” 
{¶13} The panel agreed with the sanction that was jointly recommended 
by the parties, namely, that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 
twelve months, with six months stayed, and that respondent pay the costs of the 
proceeding.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the panel. 
{¶14} Based on the foregoing, we find that the suspension and partial 
stay recommended by the parties, the panel, and the board are appropriate.  As we 
noted in Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 369, 373, 667 
N.E.2d 1186, “[R]espect for the law and our legal system is the sine qua non of 
[the] right to continuance on the rolls. * * * All our Disciplinary Rules and all our 
Ethical Considerations are founded on respect for the law, for the court system, 
for the judges, for counsel and, of course, for clients.”  Respondent lied in his 
answer to the complaint filed against him, in his deposition, and in an affidavit 
submitted to the trial court about his relationships with his employees.  These lies 
warrant an actual suspension from the practice of law.  Cf. Trumbo, 76 Ohio St.3d 
369, 667 N.E.2d 1186 (continually lying to clients, lying to court, and to 
Disciplinary Counsel warranted indefinite suspension); Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Hendricks (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 566, 629 N.E.2d 429 (attorney misconduct in 
committing perjury, lying repeatedly to clients, and lying to bar association 
warrants two-year suspension, stayed with conditions). 
January Term, 2003 
5 
{¶15} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for one year, with six months of the suspension stayed on the 
conditions that respondent refrain from any acts in violation of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility and that respondent pay the costs of these disciplinary 
proceedings.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG STRATTON and 
O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. 
 
I would suspend respondent for one year and would not stay any portion 
of the suspension. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Geoffrey Stern and Irene K. Makrides, for respondent. 
__________________