Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Fidler

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. FIDLER. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Fidler (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Eighteen-month suspension with one year of 
the sanction stayed on conditions — Convictions for shoplifting — 
Withholding the truth during a disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 97-2641 — Submitted May 13, 1998 — Decided October 14, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-112. 
 
On April 19, 1985, respondent, Mark W. Fidler of Cincinnati, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0020309, was arrested for taking four compact disks 
from Swallens’ Department Store in Springdale, Ohio.  He paid a fine after 
pleading guilty to petty theft in the Springdale Mayor’s Court.  On March 14, 
1996, the MicroCenter computer store at Sharonville, Ohio, charged respondent 
with petty theft for concealing three compact disks on his person.  Respondent 
pled no contest in the Sharonville Mayor’s Court, was convicted of disorderly 
conduct, and paid a fine of $100. 
 
Respondent reported his 1996 conviction, but not his 1985 conviction, to 
the relator, Cincinnati Bar Association.  When interviewed by relator with respect 
to that report, respondent specifically denied that he had ever stolen anything on 
any prior occasion.  Later, in a sworn statement, respondent told relator of the 
1985 conviction, stating that he had not revealed it earlier because at that time he 
believed it had been expunged from his record. 
 
Respondent failed to register timely his status as an attorney with the Ohio 
Supreme Court for five successive biennial periods, registering from two days to 
five months late. 
 
2
 
On December 9, 1996, relator filed a complaint charging that respondent’s 
convictions, his failure to report his 1985 conviction, and his failures to register 
timely with the Supreme Court constituted violations of the Disciplinary Rules.  
Respondent answered, and on June 12, 1997, a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”) heard evidence and 
received a stipulation of the parties. 
 
The panel found the facts as stated and concluded that respondent’s 1985 
shoplifting violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral 
turpitude), (4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), and (6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon the 
fitness to practice law). It further concluded that respondent’s failure to report the 
1985 conviction violated DR 1-103(A) (a lawyer with unprivileged knowledge of 
a violation of DR 1-102 shall report such knowledge to an authority empowered to 
investigate the violation).  It concluded that respondent’s failure to timely register 
for several registration periods reflected a pattern of dishonesty and evasion of  
responsibility, which constituted a violation of DR 1-102(A)(6).  And because 
respondent practiced during a time when he was not in good standing, the panel 
concluded that he violated DR 3-101(B) (a lawyer shall not practice in a 
jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of  the regulations of the 
profession in that jurisdiction).  In mitigation the panel received evidence that at 
the time of the thefts respondent was under great personal stress.  It also received 
sixteen character letters from lawyers and judges.  The panel recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months with one 
year of the suspension stayed pending successful completion of a one-year 
probation period and appropriate counseling to address the problems that caused 
 
3
respondent to engage in the underlying misconduct.  The board adopted the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
W. Breck Weigel, Thomas S. Shore and Maria C. Palermo, for relator. 
 
H. Fred Hoefle, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings of fact of the board.  We conclude that 
respondent’s convictions for shoplifting were, as respondent stipulated,  in 
violation of DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), and (6).  We further conclude that respondent’s 
failure to report his 1985 conviction when specifically questioned violated DR 1-
103(A). 
 
Recently, when an attorney withheld the truth during a disciplinary 
investigation, we imposed a definite suspension.  Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Derivan 
(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 300, 691 N.E.2d 256.  We find a definite suspension 
appropriate in this case.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law 
for eighteen months with one year of the suspension stayed pending successful 
completion of a one-year probation period and appropriate counseling to address 
the problems that caused respondent to engage in the underlying misconduct.  Cost 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.