Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Herzog

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Herzog, 87 Ohio St.3d 215, 1999-Ohio-30.] 
 
 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. HERZOG. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Herzog (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 215.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension — Misrepresentations, 
lack of candor, and failure to fully cooperate in personal bankruptcy 
proceeding. 
(No. 99-1157 — Submitted August 25, 1999 — Decided November 10, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-76. 
 
In October 1998, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging respondent, Arnold Herzog of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No. 0022103, with violating several Disciplinary Rules.  After respondent filed an 
answer, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
Based on the stipulations, exhibits, and testimony, the panel found that in 
May 1987, respondent’s former client, Sylvester McClarty, filed a legal 
malpractice action against him, and McClarty subsequently obtained a $40,000 
judgment against respondent.  In December 1989, Herzog filed for bankruptcy 
under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The bankruptcy was a one-creditor case, 
i.e., McClarty. 
 
As respondent conceded, throughout the bankruptcy proceeding, he was less 
than candid and resisted efforts to discover assets.  For example, during a hearing 
in the bankruptcy proceeding, respondent testified that he stopped practicing law in 
1987 and did not have any new clients after that time.  He later admitted that this 
testimony was false.  Respondent also failed to cooperate with the bankruptcy 
trustee’s requests for him to produce all supporting documentation for his income 
 
 
2
tax returns and failed to fully explain his interest in or use of certain assets, e.g., 
the net proceeds of a sale of a house and his interest in a treasury bill. 
 
At the conclusion of the proceeding, the bankruptcy court, in denying  
respondent’s attempts to exempt his IRA and KEOGH accounts on grounds they 
were reasonably necessary for his support, found that “[t]he evidence establishes 
that [respondent] * * * was less than candid in disclosing his labors and income in 
the past 3 years.” 
 
Respondent appealed the bankruptcy court’s judgment, but later dismissed 
the appeal and, pursuant to the bankruptcy trustee’s motion to settle and 
compromise all claims in the case, paid McClarty with money from his IRA and 
KEOGH accounts. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) 
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 
1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law). 
 
In mitigation, the panel found that respondent practiced law with an 
unblemished record from 1957 until 1986.  After the law firm he had worked with 
dissolved following the deaths of two of the five lawyers in the firm, he became 
depressed and suffered marital difficulties.  Respondent introduced letters from six 
attorneys who stated that respondent was a person of the highest personal and 
professional integrity. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for one year, with six months of that suspension stayed as long as no 
further disciplinary complaints are filed against respondent during that time.  The 
board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 
six months. 
__________________ 
 
 
3
 
Steven S. Kaufman and Lynn A. McLaughlin, for relator. 
 
Charles W. Kettlewell and Dennis P. Murray, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board. “ ‘[W]hen an attorney engages in a course of conduct resulting in a 
finding that the attorney has violated DR 1-102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually 
suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time.’ ”  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Eisenberg (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 295, 296, 690 N.E.2d 
1282, 1283, quoting Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 
187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240. 
 
Respondent’s conduct throughout the bankruptcy proceeding, including his 
misrepresentations, lack of candor, and failure to fully cooperate, warrants a 
suspension.  We will not allow attorneys who lie to courts to continue practicing 
law without interruption.  See Toledo Bar Assn. v. Batt (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 189, 
192, 677 N.E.2d 349, 352.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for six months.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.