Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Stern

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stern, 106 Ohio St.3d 266, 2005-Ohio-4804.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. STERN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stern, 106 Ohio St.3d 266, 2005-Ohio-4804.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude — 
Engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness 
to practice law — Permanent disbarment. 
(No. 2005-0283 — Submitted April 13, 2005 — Decided September 28, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-025. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Ira Sidney Stern, formerly of Columbus, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0028725, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1979.  On 
March 29, 2004, we imposed an interim suspension under Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4) 
after we received notice that respondent had been convicted of a felony offense.  
In re Stern, 101 Ohio St.3d 1495, 2004-Ohio-1482, 805 N.E.2d 1133. 
{¶ 2} In April 2004, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent 
with professional misconduct.  Respondent was served with the relator’s 
complaint but did not answer, and relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar 
R. V(6)(F)(1).  A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline granted the motion and prepared findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and a recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
{¶ 3} In 2003, respondent entered pleas of guilty to four federal criminal 
charges in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case 
Nos. CR-2-02-21 and CR-2-03-56.  Those criminal offenses were (1) conspiracy 
to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute heroin, a violation of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Sections 841 and 846, Title 21, U.S.Code, (2) maliciously damaging a building by 
fire, a violation of Section 844(i), Title 18, U.S.Code, (3) bank fraud, a violation 
of Section 1344, Title 18, U.S.Code, and (4) money laundering (engaging in a 
monetary transaction in property of a value greater than $10,000 where the 
property had been derived from a specified unlawful activity), a violation of 
Section 1957, Title 18, U.S.Code.  Respondent was sentenced to a term of 12 
months in prison on the first charge and 60 months in prison on each of the other 
three charges.  The three 60-month sentences are to be served concurrently, but 
they are to run consecutively to the 12-month sentence.  Once he is released from 
prison, respondent must serve a three-year period of supervised release. 
{¶ 4} The crimes occurred between 1999 and 2001.  The drug charge 
resulted from respondent’s purchase of heroin with the intent to resell it to his 
girlfriend and others.  The remaining charges are all connected to the following 
scheme:  After the respondent purchased rental property in Columbus in 1999, he 
arranged to have the property damaged or destroyed by fire.  After the fire, he 
obtained a check from an insurance company for the fire damage, then forged a 
signature for the other payee on the check and retained the proceeds.  He also later 
forged a signature on another check, deposited it, and retained the proceeds. 
{¶ 5} Relator alleged in 2004 that respondent had thereby violated three 
Disciplinary Rules:  DR 1-102(A)(3) (barring illegal conduct involving moral 
turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (barring conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on a 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 6} The master commissioner found that respondent had violated all 
three of those provisions, and the board agreed.  In recommending a sanction for 
this misconduct, the master commissioner and board considered the aggravating 
and mitigating factors of respondent’s case.  See Section 10 of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
January Term, 2005 
3 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The board 
cited no aggravating factors beyond the criminal convictions described above.  On 
the mitigating side of the equation, the board noted that respondent had no prior 
disciplinary record.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
{¶ 7} Relator recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred, as 
did the master commissioner.  The board adopted that recommendation. 
{¶ 8} After reviewing the matter, we find that respondent did indeed 
commit the misconduct found by the board, and we conclude that disbarment is 
the appropriate sanction.  A lawyer who engages in the kind of criminal conduct 
committed by respondent violates the duty to maintain personal honesty and 
integrity, which is one of the most basic professional obligations owed by lawyers 
to the public.  Respondent’s misconduct was harmful to the legal profession, 
which is and ought to be a high calling dedicated to the service of clients and the 
public good.  “[P]ermanent disbarment is an appropriate sanction for conduct that 
violates DR 1-102 and results in a felony conviction.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Gallagher (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 51, 52, 693 N.E.2d 1078. 
{¶ 9} Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________