Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Cook

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cook, 89 Ohio St.3d 80, 2000-Ohio-447.] 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. COOK. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cook (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 80.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with full credit for time 
served under interim suspension — Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice — Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on 
fitness to practice law. 
(No. 99-2264 — Submitted February 9, 2000 — Decided May 24, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-22. 
 
In December 1996, Montel L. Humphrey employed respondent, Gary 
Cook of Shaker Heights, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0021240, to prepare 
contracts to purchase a bar, a beauty supply store, and a home, and to incorporate 
H.M. Company and T.M.T.L., Inc. 
 
Respondent was unaware that Humphrey obtained the money to engage in 
these transactions from the distribution of illicit drugs. 
 
In May 1998, however, the United States attorney charged respondent 
under Sections 1957(a) and 2, Title 18, U.S.Code, for engaging in monetary 
transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity. (The specified 
unlawful activity was conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance under 
Section 846, Title 21 U.S.Code.) 
 
Respondent entered into a plea agreement in which he admitted that he 
“assisted Humphrey in the [attempt] to obtain financing for the residence [and] * 
* * that he acted with reckless disregard for the truth as to the source of 
Humphrey’s monies with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth about 
the source of the funds to be used by Humphrey in the unlawful transaction to 
purchase the residence.” 
 
 
2 
 
Respondent was sentenced to three years of probation, six months’ home 
confinement, one hundred and fifty hours of community service, and ordered to 
pay a fine of $2,000.  In February 1999, based on the felony conviction, he was 
suspended from the practice of law for an interim period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(5)(A)(4).  In re Cook (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 1498, 705 N.E.2d 1240. 
 
On April 12, 1999, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a 
complaint charging that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer 
shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 
1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  Respondent answered, and a panel of the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) 
heard the matter on stipulated facts.  The panel found the facts as stipulated and 
concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6).  The 
panel noted that respondent had no intent to commit a crime, had cooperated with 
the district attorney in the prosecution of Humphrey, had already completed the 
six months of home confinement and community service, and had paid the fine 
imposed by the United States District Court.  The panel recommended that 
respondent receive a six-month suspension with credit for time served, that the 
interim suspension be terminated immediately, and that respondent be reinstated 
to the practice of law. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel.  It recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 
six months, with full credit for the time respondent served under the interim 
suspension.  The board further recommended that respondent’s suspension be 
terminated immediately and that he be reinstated to the practice of law. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
 
3 
 
Mary L. Cibella, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six 
months.  Respondent shall receive full credit for time served under the interim 
suspension; therefore, the interim suspension is immediately terminated and 
respondent is reinstated to the practice of law.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.