Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Finan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Finan, 118 Ohio St.3d 106, 2008-Ohio-1807.] 
 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. FINAN. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Finan, 118 Ohio St.3d 106, 2008-Ohio-1807.] 
Attorneys – Misconduct – Improperly notarizing signature on affidavit – Public 
reprimand. 
(No. 2007-2300 – Submitted January 9, 2008 – Decided April 23, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-063. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Christine D. Finan of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0055892, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1991.  Relator, Akron 
Bar Association, filed a complaint charging respondent with two violations of the 
Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement.  See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing 
Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The panel 
accepted the agreement and its statement of facts and made a recommendation, 
which the board adopted. 
{¶ 2} The board recommends that we issue a public reprimand to 
respondent for her misconduct.  We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and 
the recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent represented Donna Orellana in a domestic relations 
matter against her former husband, Mark Orellana.  Respondent filed a post-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
decree motion for contempt alleging that Mr. Orellana had failed to comply with 
the parenting plan.  Respondent prepared an affidavit for Ms. Orellana’s signature 
in support of the motion. 
{¶ 4} Respondent presented the affidavit to the court as an affidavit of 
fact purportedly containing her client’s signature and respondent’s notarization of 
her client’s signature.  At a hearing on the motion, Mr. Orellana challenged Ms. 
Orellana’s signature and some of the facts in the affidavit.  Respondent 
acknowledged to the court two factual errors in the affidavit.  Respondent also 
admitted that she had signed Ms. Orellana’s name to the affidavit and notarized 
her own signature of Ms. Orellana’s name.  Ms. Orellana confirmed to the court 
that she had provided the information in the affidavit and that she had authorized 
respondent to sign her name. 
{¶ 5} The court dismissed the contempt motion due to respondent’s 
misconduct. 
{¶ 6} Respondent admitted the facts contained in the complaint, and the 
board found that her acts constituted violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) (barring a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of 
justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (barring a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated in the agreement to mitigating factors for the 
panel’s consideration.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2).  The parties agreed that 
respondent had no prior disciplinary record and that she is known to have good 
character and reputation.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (e).  There was no 
evidence of a dishonest or selfish motive, and respondent made a timely, good-
faith effort to rectify the consequences of her misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(b) and (c).  And respondent was cooperative during the disciplinary 
January Term, 2008 
3 
proceedings, and she disclosed information fully and freely to the board.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d). 
{¶ 8} The parties agreed that the appropriate sanction for respondent’s 
misconduct was a public reprimand.  The board accepted the agreed sanction. 
Review 
{¶ 9} Based on the consent-to-discipline agreement, we accept the 
board’s findings that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6) and 
the board’s recommended sanction.  Respondent is therefore publicly 
reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Dianne R. Newman and Vincent J. Alfera; and Rhonda Davis & 
Associates, L.L.C., and Rhonda G. Davis, for relator. 
 
Matthew Fortado, for respondent. 
______________________