Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. DeLong

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. DeLong, 98 Ohio St.3d 470, 2003-Ohio-1743.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DELONG. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. DeLong, 98 Ohio St.3d 470, 2003-Ohio-1743.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Eighteen-month suspension — Practicing law for 
over nine years after license was suspended — Consistently failing to 
comply with attorney registration requirements. 
(No. 2002-2222 — Submitted February 12, 2003 — Decided April 23, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court, No. 02-70. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Mark E. DeLong of Huron, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No. 0018468, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in November 1973.  On 
August 12, 2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with misconduct 
in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and, based on the 
parties’ stipulations and respondent’s testimony, made the following findings. 
{¶2} 
On June 18, 1993, we fined respondent $750 and suspended his 
license to practice law for failing to comply with the continuing legal education 
(“CLE”) requirements of Gov.Bar R. X and to pay court-ordered CLE sanctions for 
the 1989 and 1990-1991 reporting periods.  In re Report of the Comm. on Continuing 
Legal Edn. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 1513, 614 N.E.2d 760.  Respondent ignored our 
order.  He continued his employment for a large truck manufacturer as general 
counsel.  Moreover, he did not inform his employer and only client that his license 
had been suspended. 
{¶3} 
Respondent remained employed as general counsel for his 
unsuspecting corporate client, which changed hands several times throughout the 
1990s, until his retirement on June 30, 2001.  And even after his retirement, he 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
continued to practice law as a consultant until February 15, 2002, in direct violation 
of our suspension of his license. 
{¶4} 
Respondent also consistently failed to timely comply with attorney 
registration requirements imposed by Gov.Bar R. VI.  For the biennium registration 
periods from 1987 through 1998, respondent always filed his registration materials at 
least six months late, once registering almost three years late and once registering 
almost five years late.  Moreover, respondent had not registered at all, prior to these 
proceedings, for the 1999-2000 or 2001-2002 registration periods, and has only 
recently begun to fulfill his continuing legal education responsibilities. 
{¶5} 
The panel found, consistent with the parties’ stipulations, that 
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice) and 3-101(B) (unauthorized practice of law).  The panel also found 
respondent in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation) because he misrepresented his status as a licensed 
attorney in good standing for over nine years, including having his client pay his 
attorney registration fees for several reporting periods. 
{¶6} 
In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the panel 
considered as mitigating the fact that respondent ultimately reported his own 
misconduct and cooperated completely in the disciplinary process.  The panel was 
impressed by six character letters describing respondent’s professional competence 
and integrity and by his receipt of a Bronze Star for service in the Vietnam War.  In 
addition, respondent offered as mitigating the fact that he had represented only one 
client while under suspension and that the client had been satisfied with his work. 
{¶7} 
As aggravating factors, the panel identified the long years in which 
respondent disregarded his professional registration and education duties and flatly 
ignored the order enforcing those duties.  The panel also found untenable 
respondent’s dishonesty to his client, his colleagues, and the public.  The panel thus 
rejected the sanction proposed by the parties—an 18-month suspension with credit for 
the time respondent has not practiced since February 15, 2002—and recommended 
January Term, 2003 
3 
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a full 18 months.  The 
board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶8} 
We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 
3-101(B) and that an 18-month suspension is appropriate.  Repeated or continuous 
attempts to mislead a client constitute a course of conduct in violation of DR 1-
102(A)(4), which warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 113, 729 N.E.2d 343, citing 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237.  
And here, respondent’s mitigation evidence does little to offset the fact that he 
stopped misrepresenting his status as a licensed attorney at his convenience, not in 
compliance with the law.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for 18 months.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK, LUNDBERG STRATTON and 
O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents because he would suspend respondent for 18 months with 
credit for time served. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Mark Aultman, for respondent. 
__________________