Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Thomas

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Thomas, 93 Ohio St.3d 402, 2001-Ohio-1344] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. THOMAS. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Thomas (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 402.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. 
(No. 01-799 — Submitted June 20, 2001 — Decided September 19, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-64. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On August 14, 2000, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, 
filed a complaint charging respondent, Leslie F. Thomas of Cincinnati, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0064995, with violating the Code of Professional 
Responsibility when representing Carolyn Thomason.  Respondent answered, and 
the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
Based on stipulations and testimony at a hearing on January 19, 2001, the 
panel found that Carolyn Thomason retained respondent to represent her in a 
divorce proceeding.  On July 28, 1999, she visited respondent’s office and 
reviewed and signed numerous documents to be filed the next day.  When 
respondent prepared to take the papers to court, she realized that her client had not 
signed one of the documents to be filed, an affidavit in support of a motion for a 
restraining order.  Because Thomason wanted the divorce action and particularly 
the motion for a restraining order filed as soon as possible, respondent called 
Thomason where she worked and obtained verbal permission to sign her name.  
Respondent then signed Thomason’s name to the affidavit but did not indicate 
thereon that the signature was made with telephone permission.  Respondent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
thereafter notarized her rendition of Thomason’s signature, stating in the notary 
subscription that Thomason had personally appeared before her and verified the 
facts, which was true, and “affixed her signature,” which was not true.  
Respondent filed the documents later the same day. 
 
On Friday, July 30, 1999, the judge of the common pleas domestic 
relations court issued a temporary restraining order against Thomason’s spouse 
based on the affidavit.  Erroneously interpreting the restraining order, which 
enjoined only disposing of or encumbering property, the police required 
Thomason’s husband to leave the marital home. 
 
On Monday, August 2, 1999, four days after the affidavit was filed, the 
spouse’s counsel, noticing a discrepancy between the signature on this affidavit 
and signatures on the other documents, brought this discrepancy to the attention 
of respondent.  At opposing counsel’s suggestion, respondent filed a properly 
signed and notarized amended affidavit the next day, with exactly the same 
information as the first affidavit, without withdrawing the first affidavit or 
notifying the court that it was improperly notarized. 
 
The judge, observing the amended affidavit, which duplicated an existing 
affidavit, asked respondent why she had filed it.  At a meeting with opposing 
counsel in the judge’s office on August 6, 1999, respondent explained the 
situation. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s acts violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice).  The panel noted in mitigation that 
respondent had not previously been disciplined for violating the rules of 
professional conduct, that she took prompt steps to remedy the situation, and that 
no party was harmed by her actions.  The panel recommended that respondent 
January Term, 2001 
3 
receive a public reprimand.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
 
We have reviewed the record in this case and adopt the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby publicly 
reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Julie Bissinger and Deborah DeLong, for relator. 
 
John H. Burlew, for respondent. 
__________________