Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Blankemeyer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Blankemeyer, 109 Ohio St.3d 156, 2006-Ohio-2038.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. BLANKEMEYER. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Blankemeyer,  
109 Ohio St.3d 156, 2006-Ohio-2038.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or 
misrepresentation — Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice 
law — Conviction on felony theft offenses — Disbarment. 
(No. 2005-2036 — Submitted January 11, 2006 — Decided May 10, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-014. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Thomas F. Blankemeyer, formerly of Cincinnati, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0071812, was admitted to the practice of law in 
Ohio in 2000.  On December 2, 2004, respondent’s license to practice law was 
suspended for an interim period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4) upon notice 
that he had been convicted of a felony.  See In re Blankemeyer, 104 Ohio St.3d 
1413, 2004-Ohio-6381, 818 N.E.2d 1199. 
{¶ 2} On February 7, 2005, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged 
that respondent had been convicted of a felony and other crimes and had thereby 
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Attempts to serve the complaint 
on respondent were initially unsuccessful, and the complaint was served on the 
Clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  On March 14, 
2005, the complaint was served by certified mail on respondent at the 
Southeastern Correctional Institution in Lancaster, Ohio, shortly before he was 
released on parole to a Columbus, Ohio address. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} Respondent had corresponded with relator during the investigation 
of the charged misconduct, but he did not answer the complaint, and relator filed a 
motion for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  Prior to that filing, an 
investigator contacted respondent’s parole officer, who would not disclose 
respondent’s precise location but did relay the request for respondent to return the 
investigator’s call.  Respondent did not reply. 
{¶ 4} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
appointed a master commissioner to consider the motion for default.  The master 
commissioner granted the motion and made findings of misconduct and a 
recommendation, which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} On August 5, 2003, respondent entered a plea of guilty to theft in 
violation of R.C. 2913.02(A), a felony of the third degree.  The Hamilton County 
Court of Common Pleas accepted the plea and placed respondent on community 
control for a period of five years.  Among the conditions of his community 
control, respondent was ordered to pay $184,643.41 in restitution to the employer 
from whom he had embezzled that amount, plus fines, costs, and fees. 
{¶ 6} On June 11, 2004, appellant was arrested for theft in violation of 
R.C. 2913.02, a misdemeanor of the first degree.  On October 13, 2004, the 
Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas revoked respondent’s community 
control and sentenced him to three years in prison, with credit for 127 days 
served.  On November 1, 2004, the pending misdemeanor theft charge against 
respondent was amended, and he was charged with unauthorized use of property 
in violation of R.C. 2913.04, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.  Respondent 
also pleaded guilty to this charge. 
{¶ 7} Based on respondent’s criminal conduct, the board found that he 
had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in illegal 
January Term, 2006 
3 
conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 
and 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely 
reflects on his fitness to practice law). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 8} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 9} Respondent reported to relator that he was addicted to pain 
medication and had stolen money to buy OxyContin for his habit.  The board 
found that this assertion lacked evidence to support it and therefore was 
insufficient to establish a mitigating factor.  As aggravating factors, the board 
found that respondent’s misconduct involved a dishonest or selfish motive, a 
pattern of misconduct, multiple acts of misconduct, and respondent’s failure to 
cooperate in the disciplinary process.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), and 
(e). 
{¶ 10} Relator recommended that respondent’s license to practice law be 
indefinitely suspended.  Adopting the master commissioner’s report, the board 
also recommended an indefinite suspension. 
Review 
{¶ 11} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 
and 1-102(A)(6), as found by the board.  We conclude, however, that respondent 
should be permanently disbarred rather than indefinitely suspended. 
{¶ 12} An attorney who has been convicted of felony theft offenses has 
violated the basic professional duty to act with honesty and integrity.  See EC 1-5 
and DR 1-102(A).  In similar cases, we have ordered permanent disbarment.  See, 
e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Stern, 106 Ohio St.3d 266, 2005-Ohio-4804, 834 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
N.E.2d 351, ¶ 8 (“Permanent disbarment is an appropriate sanction for conduct 
that * * * results in a felony conviction”); Disciplinary Counsel v. Bein, 105 Ohio 
St.3d 62, 2004-Ohio-7012, 822 N.E.2d 358, ¶ 12 (“An attorney who turns to 
crime and is convicted of theft offenses should be disbarred”); Cincinnati Bar 
Assn. v. Blake, 100 Ohio St.3d 298, 2003-Ohio-5755, 798 N.E.2d 610, ¶ 7 
(“Disbarment is warranted when an attorney turns to crime and is convicted of 
theft offenses”). 
{¶ 13} Respondent is therefore permanently disbarred from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK, J., dissents and would indefinitely suspend respondent. 
__________________ 
 
James A. Vogele and Fay Danner Dupuis, for relator. 
______________________