Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmons

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmons, 120 Ohio St.3d 304, 2008-Ohio-6142.] 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SIMMONS. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmons, 
 120 Ohio St.3d 304, 2008-Ohio-6142.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Conduct involving dishonesty—Practicing in a 
jurisdiction in violation of local regulations—Conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice—One-year suspension, with six months stayed. 
(No. 2008-1152—Submitted August 26, 2008—Decided December 3, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-047. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Frank James Simmons Jr. of Detroit, Michigan, 
Attorney Registration No. 0058498, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1992. On 
December 2, 2005, respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Ohio 
for failing to comply with the registration requirements of Gov.Bar R. VI(6)(B).  
In re Attorney Registration Suspension, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 
838 N.E.2d 671.  He was reinstated in June 2006.  In re Reinstatement of 
Simmons, 110 Ohio St.3d 1424, 2006-Ohio-3648, 850 N.E.2d 1217.  Relator, 
Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging respondent with two counts of 
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause.  The parties 
waived a hearing and submitted this matter to the panel on their stipulation of 
facts and law, including a recommended sanction.  The panel accepted the 
agreement and its statement of facts and made a recommendation, which the 
board adopted. 
{¶ 2} The board recommends that we impose a one-year suspension with 
six months stayed. We adopt the board's findings of misconduct and its 
recommended sanction. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Stipulated Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 3} Respondent represented a client before the Third Judicial Circuit 
Court of Wayne County, Michigan, Family Division, in April 2006, when he was 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  He later filed a motion regarding 
custody, a request for a hearing, a notice of a hearing, and a certificate of mailing 
on behalf of the client. 
{¶ 4} On the request for a hearing, respondent identified himself and 
Jessica R. Simmons as the attorneys of record, affiliated with “Simmons & 
Simmons, L.P.A.,” in Detroit.  Jessica Simmons is respondent’s sister and is 
licensed to practice law in the state of Michigan.  But at no time did Jessica 
Simmons participate in a  law firm known as “Simmons & Simmons,” represent 
that client, or approve respondent’s use of her name and bar number on any of the 
pleadings. 
{¶ 5} On January 16, 2007, respondent appeared before Judge Kathleen 
M. McCarthy and did not advise the court that he was not licensed to practice in 
Michigan.  On behalf of the client, respondent negotiated a settlement with the 
client’s former spouse and submitted an amended order for parenting time to the 
court for signature. 
{¶ 6} The court discovered that the respondent was not licensed to 
practice law in Michigan prior to the signing of the order.  A clerk for the judge 
sent a letter to respondent informing him that the amended order could not be 
signed until the client appeared on his own behalf to sign the document or hired 
an attorney.  A copy of the communication was also sent to Jessica Simmons.  On 
January 25, 2007, Jessica Simmons wrote to respondent asking him to stop using 
her name and noting that “Simmons & Simmons” never existed. 
Count II 
January Term, 2008 
3 
{¶ 7} In January 2006, respondent filed a motion for substitution of 
counsel and an entry of appearance on behalf of a different client in a criminal 
matter pending before the Second Judicial District Court of Lenawee County, 
Michigan.  Respondent again falsely represented that Jessica Simmons from 
“Simmons & Simmons” was the counsel of record.  In addition, respondent 
falsely represented to the court that Jessica Simmons was requesting that the court 
permit him to act as counsel for the client in the pending matter.  The motion 
indicated that respondent was counsel in the Toledo law firm of “Simmons & 
Simmons.”  Respondent signed the motion as “Jessica R. Simmons” and gave his 
home address in Michigan. 
{¶ 8} Lenawee County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Robert J. Leon 
filed a motion in the criminal case indicating that respondent had been suspended 
from the practice of law in December 2005.  Leon requested that respondent be 
removed as counsel and that he and Jessica Simmons be found in contempt of 
court.  Respondent informed the court that Jessica Simmons was unaware that his 
license had been suspended when he filed the motions using her name.  The 
Lenawee County Circuit Court found respondent in contempt and ordered him to 
pay a $150 fine to the court and $250 in restitution to the prosecutor’s office.  The 
court removed respondent as counsel and remanded the cause to the district court, 
which also found him guilty of contempt and ordered him to pay a $1,000 fine. 
Stipulated Violations 
{¶ 9} The respondent stipulated and the board found that respondent’s 
acts set forth above constituted violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), DR 
1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), and DR 3-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not practice law in 
a jurisdiction where to do so would violate regulations of the profession in that 
jurisdiction). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 10} 
In mitigation, the parties stipulated that respondent had paid 
fines for his misconduct.  Section 10(B)(2)(f) of the Rules and Regulations 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  Relator and respondent 
recommend that the board impose a one-year suspension, with six months stayed. 
Review 
{¶ 11} 
Violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) warrant an actual suspension from 
the practice of law. Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 
187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237.  The parties mistakenly included DR 3-101(A)(3) as 
the rule violation concerning the practice in another jurisdiction, instead of the 
correct rule citation, DR 3-101(B). We find that respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(4), DR 1-102(A)(5), and DR 3-101(B). Based on the violations and facts 
admitted in the stipulation, we accept the board’s recommendation of a one-year 
suspension with six months stayed. 
{¶ 12} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for one year, with six months stayed on condition of no further violations.  If 
the condition is violated, the stay will be lifted, and respondent shall serve the 
entire one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.  
____________________ 
Jonathan Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Jerome Phillips, for respondent. 
______________________