Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Cirincione

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cirincione, 102 Ohio St.3d 117, 2004-Ohio-1810.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. CIRINCIONE. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cirincione, 102 Ohio St.3d 117, 2004-Ohio-
1810.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with six months stayed 
on condition that no Disciplinary Rule is violated during the period — 
Engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on 
fitness to practice law — Accepting employment when professional 
judgment may reasonably be affected by personal interests — 
Wrongfully providing financial assistance to client aside from court 
costs and expenses of litigation — Counseling or assisting client in 
conduct known to be illegal or fraudulent — Failing to report client’s 
fraud to a tribunal. 
(No. 2003-1867 — Submitted December 15, 2003 — Decided April 28, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-95. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On December 9, 2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a single-
count complaint charging respondent, Ross Salvatore Cirincione of Garfield 
Heights, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0024774, with several violations of the 
Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent answered, admitting some 
allegations and disputing others. 
{¶2} 
On July 21, 2003, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline conducted a hearing.  At the hearing, the panel 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
accepted the parties’ stipulations of facts and exhibits and received testimony 
from several witnesses. 
{¶3} 
The stipulations and evidence established that respondent was 
admitted to the practice of law in 1976 and thereafter practiced law.  In May 
1997, respondent met Tiffany Wayne, now known as Tiffany Antoniewicz.  
Shortly after they met, respondent engaged in sexual relations once with Tiffany.  
Thereafter, respondent developed a romantic obsession for Tiffany, although they 
did not continue any sexual relationship.  From May 1997 through March 2001, 
respondent and Tiffany often spent time together.  During this period, respondent 
gave Tiffany $11,000 in cash and other things of value and also acted as her legal 
counsel in several criminal and civil matters.  In April 1998, Tiffany married 
Edward Antoniewicz. 
{¶4} 
On numerous occasions between May 1997 and January 2001, 
Tiffany and Edward illegally obtained prescription drugs from pharmacies in 
northern Ohio.  Respondent did not participate in this illegal activity.  In October 
1997, a grand jury indicted Edward and Tiffany for illegally obtaining 
prescription drugs.  On this charge, another attorney represented Tiffany, and 
Tiffany was convicted of deception to obtain dangerous drugs and ordered to 
undergo treatment in lieu of a conviction. 
{¶5} 
Respondent represented Edward in this criminal case, and Edward 
also received an order of treatment in lieu of a conviction.  However, in 
November 1999, Edward went to prison for six months for a probation violation.  
Respondent represented Edward in this matter free of charge. 
{¶6} 
After December 1999, Tiffany was charged in three criminal 
matters.  Tiffany retained counsel in one case, an appointed attorney represented 
her on a second case, and respondent agreed to handle the third case for free.  In 
May 2000, Tiffany pled guilty to the charges, and Cuyahoga County Common 
Pleas Court Judge Burt Griffin sentenced Tiffany to 18 months of incarceration.  
January Term, 2004 
3 
Tiffany entered prison in June 2000, and respondent provided approximately $500 
to Tiffany while she was incarcerated.  In August and September 2000, 
respondent appeared as counsel for Tiffany in a mayor’s court and negotiated a 
plea in absentia to petty theft. 
{¶7} 
In August 2000, at Tiffany’s request, respondent prepared and filed 
in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court a motion for judicial release of 
Tiffany from prison.  Respondent did so free of charge. 
{¶8} 
Around September 2000, at Tiffany’s request, respondent located a 
house in Vermilion, Ohio, for Tiffany to live in upon her release from prison.  The 
house was located outside Cuyahoga County.  Respondent falsely told the 
landlord that the Vermilion house was for a client who was obtaining a divorce 
and moving from Michigan to Ohio.  In October 2000, respondent wrote a letter 
to the landlord restating the rental terms and enclosing a money order for $900 
from his own funds for the first month’s rent. 
{¶9} 
Thereafter, respondent, acting as Tiffany’s attorney, drafted a lease 
for the house in Vermilion.  Respondent drafted the lease as if it were for Tiffany 
and her sister, Renee Gangel.  Gangel, however, lived in Parma and never 
intended to move to Vermilion. 
{¶10} On November 3, 2000, respondent appeared with Tiffany before 
Judge Griffin for a hearing on the motion for judicial release.  Judge Griffin 
granted judicial release for Tiffany on condition that (1) Tiffany live with her 
sister, Renee Gangel, (2) Tiffany not live with her husband Edward without 
permission of her probation officer, and (3) Tiffany not leave Cuyahoga County 
without her probation officer’s permission.  Both respondent and Tiffany agreed 
to and signed the judicial-release order. 
{¶11} At the hearing on the motion for judicial release, respondent 
asserted that Tiffany was going to live with her sister, Renee.  Respondent 
mentioned that Renee lived in Parma, but he also said that Renee and Tiffany 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
might relocate to Lorain County.  According to Judge Griffin’s later testimony, 
the “living arrangement” that he imposed in the judicial-release order — that 
Tiffany would live with her sister and not her husband — “was absolutely crucial 
to her getting judicial release.” 
{¶12} Respondent understood that carrying out the plan to have Tiffany 
live in Vermilion would violate the court order because she would be living 
outside Cuyahoga County and she would not be living with her sister.  
Nonetheless, respondent did not ask the court to modify its order, nor did he 
disclose to the court the arrangements made before the hearing to lease the house 
in Vermilion. 
{¶13} On November 3, 2000, respondent gave Renee Gangel the 
Vermilion lease agreement and also gave her $900 of his own money for the 
December rent.  At no time during or after the hearing did respondent ask Renee 
to return the written lease or the $900 he had given her for the Vermilion lease. 
{¶14} In mid-November 2000, respondent learned that on November 4, 
Edward, who had been released from prison, and Tiffany drove to the Vermilion 
house.  There they met with the landlord, signed the lease, and paid the landlord 
the $900 from respondent as rent.  Although respondent learned that Tiffany had 
moved to Vermilion, he did not notify the court of his client’s violations of the 
terms of her judicial release.  Moreover, respondent continued to provide 
assistance to Tiffany after the move.  He provided transportation for her to visit 
her probation officer in Cuyahoga County on at least three occasions as well as 
money for rent, telephone bills, and other living expenses.  From November 2000 
to April 2001, respondent spent several thousand dollars to cover Tiffany’s 
expenses. 
{¶15} On January 3, 2001, when respondent was driving Tiffany to the 
probation officer, Tiffany asked respondent to stop at a store.  Once inside, she 
attempted to illegally obtain a prescription.  After police stopped Tiffany, 
January Term, 2004 
5 
respondent advised police that he was her attorney.  After consultation, Tiffany 
consented to a search of her Vermilion home, and police seized evidence from the 
home.  Thereafter, respondent asked another attorney, Ronald James, to represent 
Tiffany.  On a later date, police searched Tiffany’s home again and seized 
additional evidence.  After the second search, respondent contacted the police and 
was directed to have his client turn herself in.  Based on respondent’s advice, 
Tiffany turned herself in around January 20, 2001. 
{¶16} Tiffany was charged with additional offenses, and attorney Ronald 
James represented her on these charges.  In March 2001, Tiffany pled guilty to 
five counts of deception to obtain dangerous drugs, and in April, she was 
sentenced to one year in prison.  In May 2001, respondent disclosed to members 
of a Lorain County drug task force the extent of his financial assistance to Tiffany 
between 1997 to 2001, including free housing in an apartment, money for the 
purchase of a car, money sent to her in prison, rent money for the Vermilion 
house, payment of telephone bills in Vermilion, Western Union money transfers, 
and periodic cash gifts. 
{¶17} In October 2001, a grand jury indicted respondent for offenses 
relating to respondent’s direct involvement in and failure to report Tiffany’s 
violation of her judicial-release order.  As a result of a plea agreement, one charge 
was dismissed and another charge was amended to a misdemeanor charge of 
failure to report a crime.  Respondent pled no contest, was found guilty, and was 
sentenced to three days in jail, which were suspended, and a fine of $50. 
{¶18} The panel found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) 
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) by 
misrepresenting Tiffany’s situation to the Vermilion landlord, including who was 
paying the rent and other expenses, and by also misrepresenting to the common 
pleas court at the hearing on judicial release where Tiffany was going to live and 
with whom. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶19} The panel also found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) 
(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).  In that regard, 
the panel found that respondent had “assisted Tiffany in violating the conditions 
of her judicial release” and also “made misrepresentations to the court during the 
judicial release hearing.” 
{¶20} The panel further found that respondent had violated DR 1-
102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law) because “Respondent maintained a continuing romantic relationship 
with his client.” 
{¶21} The panel also found that respondent’s relationship with Tiffany 
and his actions on her behalf had constituted violations of DR 5-101(A)(1) 
(accepting employment when the attorney’s professional judgment may 
reasonably be affected by the lawyer’s personal interests), 5-103(B) (wrongfully 
providing financial assistance to a client aside from court costs and expenses of 
litigation), 7-102(A)(7) (counseling or assisting a client in conduct known to be 
illegal or fraudulent), and 7-102(B)(1) (failing to report a client’s fraud to a 
tribunal).  The panel, however, found that respondent’s conviction for failing to 
report a crime did not establish a violation of DR 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct 
involving moral turpitude). 
{¶22} As aggravating factors, the panel noted that “the violations 
continued for a significant period of time, and Respondent has neither admitted 
them nor expressed any remorse.”  In mitigation, the panel noted that respondent 
“is a long-time practitioner, and he has not been the subject of any previous 
disciplinary proceedings.”  Respondent also presented many letters of support 
from prominent citizens as well as extensive character evidence. 
{¶23} Relator recommended a suspension of 18 months, with a six-month 
stay.  The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
January Term, 2004 
7 
law for 12 months, with the last six months stayed on condition of compliance 
with Disciplinary Rules. 
{¶24} The board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of 
the panel and recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law for 12 months, with six months stayed.  The board also recommended that 
costs be taxed to respondent. 
{¶25} We concur in the findings of the board concerning respondent’s 
misconduct and its conclusion that he violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-
102(A)(6), 5-101(A)(1), 5-103(B), 7-102(A)(7), and 7-102(B)(1).  As the board 
found, respondent in his statements to the landlord had “misrepresented his 
situation, Tiffany’s situation, why she needed to rent the property, and who was 
going to be paying the rent and other expenses.”  The board also found that in his 
representation of Tiffany before the common pleas court, respondent had 
“misrepresented Tiffany’s intentions, insofar as he stated that she would be living 
in Parma with her sister, even though Respondent had already made arrangements 
for her to live in Vermilion with her husband.”  Further, the board noted that 
respondent had “assisted Tiffany in violating the conditions of her judicial 
release.” 
{¶26} Respondent’s continued improper representation of Tiffany, while 
providing financial and other assistance to her, culminated in respondent’s 
violation of DR 7-102(B)(1).  In addition to assisting Tiffany in violating the 
judicial-release conditions, the board found that respondent “neither called upon 
her to rectify the situation nor reported the situation to the court.” 
{¶27} In considering the sanction to impose, we have compared 
respondent’s cases with other cases.  In Disciplinary Counsel v. Lombardi, 96 
Ohio St.3d 54, 2002-Ohio-2990, 770 N.E.2d 1013, we imposed a two-year 
suspension, with 18 months stayed, for violations of DR 1-102(A)(5), 5-103(B), 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
and 7-102(A)(7), and other violations.  In Lombardi, an attorney assisted a client 
in evading a court order by providing improper financial assistance. 
{¶28} In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Nienaber (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 534, 
687 N.E.2d 678, we imposed an indefinite suspension for violations of DR 1-
102(A)(4) and (A)(5), as well as DR 7-102(A)(5), because an attorney made 
untrue representations to a court.  In Nienaber, we noted that as to attorneys, 
“[w]e require complete candor with courts.”  Id. at 537, 687 N.E.2d 678.  In 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Heffernan (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 260, 569 N.E.2d 1027, 
we imposed a six-month suspension for a violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) and (A)(6).  
In Heffernan, an attorney subsequently learned that his client in a traffic case had 
falsely assumed the identity of his brother in court but did not notify the court of 
the fraud. 
{¶29} In this case, we agree with the board’s recommendation that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 12 months with the final six 
months of that period stayed.  Respondent knew at the time of the judicial-release 
hearing of his client’s intention to live in Vermilion and not with her sister, yet 
said nothing when confronted with the court’s conditions of judicial release.  
Moreover, respondent continued to assist her in violating the terms of her 
probation.  Nonetheless, we are not imposing a more severe sanction in view of 
respondent’s strong character evidence and his otherwise unblemished record in 
the practice of law, many years of which were in public service representing 
government entities. 
{¶30} Therefore, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law 
in Ohio for 12 months, but that suspension is stayed for six months on the 
condition that respondent violate no Disciplinary Rule during the period.  If 
respondent violates the condition of this stay, the stay will be lifted and 
respondent will serve the entire period of the suspension.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
January Term, 2004 
9 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
_______________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert Berger, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Richard Koblentz and Craig Morice, for respondent. 
__________________