Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-313.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-313 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BENNETT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-313.] 
Attorney misconduct, including engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit — Indefinite suspension, with credit for time served under felony-
conviction interim suspension. 
(No. 2009-1100 — Submitted August 11, 2009 — Decided February 4, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-037. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Clyde Bennett II, formerly of Mason, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0059910, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992.  
On February 15, 2008, we suspended respondent’s license to practice on an 
interim basis pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4) upon receiving notice that he had 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
been convicted of a felony.  See In re Bennett, 117 Ohio St.3d 1401, 2008-Ohio-
594, 881 N.E.2d 270. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends that we now suspend respondent from practice for one year and give 
him credit for the time his license has been under the interim suspension.  The 
board made this recommendation based on findings that respondent had structured 
financial transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements for transfers in 
excess of $10,000, the illegal conduct that led to his conviction.  We agree that 
respondent violated ethical standards incumbent upon Ohio attorneys but hold that 
an indefinite suspension, with credit for the interim suspension, is the appropriate 
sanction. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with violating 
two Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 1-
102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The 
parties waived an evidentiary hearing and filed agreed stipulations in which 
respondent admitted the cited misconduct and the parties proposed that he receive 
a one-year suspension with credit for the time served since his February 15, 2008 
interim suspension.  A panel of three board members recommended acceptance of 
the agreed stipulations and proposed sanction.  The board adopted the panel’s 
report, accepting the stipulations and recommendation. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulated to respondent’s violations of DR 1-
102(A)(4) and (6), and to the following underlying facts: 
{¶ 5} 1.  “On September 26, 2007, respondent pled guilty to a one-count 
Bill of Information alleging a Class C Felony in violation of 31 USC §5342(a)(3) 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
and (d)(2) [sic 5324(a)(3) and (d)(2)] and 18 USC §2 for unlawfully structuring 
financial transactions, Case No. 3:07CR144.” 
{¶ 6} 2.  “On December 28, 2007, US District Court Judge Thomas Rose 
sentenced respondent to 24 months in prison and a $4,000 fine.” 
{¶ 7} 3.  “Under 31 USC §5313, certain federal regulations, namely 31 
CFR §§ 103.11 and 103.22, required domestic financial institutions to prepare and 
file FINCEN Form 104 whenever they were involved in the payment, receipt, or 
transfer of US Currency exceeding $10,000.” 
{¶ 8} 4.  “At all times herein, respondent was aware of such regulations.” 
{¶ 9} 5. “Structuring occurs when a person conducts one or more 
currency transactions at one or more financial institutions (or different branches 
of the same financial institution), on one or more days.  One does this with the 
purpose of evading currency transaction reporting requirements.  Structuring 
includes breaking down a single sum of currency over $10,000 into smaller sums 
or conducting a series of case transactions all at or below $10,000 with the 
purpose of evading currency transaction reporting requirements.” 
{¶ 10} 6.  “During a five-month period, respondent unlawfully structured 
approximately $124,300 with various financial institutions located around 
Cincinnati, Ohio for the express purpose of evading the above-mentioned 
reporting requirements.” 
{¶ 11} 7.  “A majority of $124,300 was currency respondent had obtained 
from previously cashed paychecks that were issued to respondent by his employer 
* * *.” 
{¶ 12} 8. “A certain unspecified portion of the currency transactions 
identified below originated from income that respondent received, but improperly 
failed to report and account to the Internal Revenue Service.  The following 
paragraphs illustrate respondent’s criminal activity.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 13} 9.  “On August 15 and 16, 2002, respondent unlawfully structured 
$18,000 in US Currency by making the following deposits: 
“• $4,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 916 Main St., Cincinnati 
“• $5,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 201 B. Fourth St., Cincinnati  
“• $3,000 at Fifth Third Bank 38 Fountain Square, Cincinnati  
“• $6,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 916 Main St., Cincinnati.” 
{¶ 14} 10. “Between September 11, 2002 and September 13, 2002, 
respondent unlawfully structured $29,300 in US Currency by making the 
following deposits: 
“• $7,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 38 Fountain Square, Cincinnati  
“• $8,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 916 Main St., Cincinnati  
“• $5,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 38 Fountain Square, Cincinnati 
“• $3,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 5th & Broadway, Cincinnati 
“• $6,300 at Fifth Third Bank, 201 E. Fourth St., Cincinnati.” 
{¶ 15} 11. “Between September 18, 2002 and September 20, 2002, 
respondent unlawfully structured $20,000 in US Currency by making the 
following deposits: 
“• $5,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 38 Fountain Square, Cincinnati  
“• $8,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 38 Fountain Square, Cincinnati  
“• $7,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 38 Fountain Square, Cincinnati.” 
{¶ 16} 12.  “Between September 23, 2002 and September 27, 2002, the 
respondent unlawfully structured $32,000 in US Currency by making the 
following deposits:1 [Footnote sic.] 
“• $8,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 916 Main St., Cincinnati 
“• $7,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 38 Fountain Square, Cincinnati 
                                                 
1. “Respondent pled guilty to unlawfully structuring transactions between September 23, 2002 and 
September 27, 2002.  The remainder of the transactions were not included in the Bill of 
Information.” 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
“• $3,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 38 Fountain Square, Cincinnati 
“• $4,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 5th & Broadway, Cincinnati 
“• $4,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 38 Fountain Square, Cincinnati 
“• $6,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 38 Fountain Square, Cincinnati.” 
{¶ 17} 13. “Between September 28, 2002 and October 1, 2002, 
respondent unlawfully structured $12,000 in US Currency by making the 
following deposits:  
“• $2,500 at Fifth Third Bank, 1212 West Kemper, Cincinnati  
“• $6,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 38 Fountain Square, Cincinnati  
“• $3,500 at Fifth Third Bank, 201 E. Fourth St., Cincinnati.” 
{¶ 18} 14. “On January 14 and 15, 2003, respondent unlawfully structured 
$13,000 in US Currency by making the following deposits:  
“• $9,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 38 Fountain Square, Cincinnati  
“• $4,000 at Fifth Third Bank, 38 Fountain Square, Cincinnati.” 
{¶ 19} 15. “As part of the plea agreement, respondent agreed, that if 
necessary, he would file corrected US Federal Income Tax returns for 2003 and 
2004 within 120 days of the plea.” 
{¶ 20} 16. “For the year 2003 and 2004, respondent and his wife filed 
joint tax returns and paid $75,540 and $76,153 in federal income taxes 
respectively.” 
{¶ 21} 17.  “To date, neither the IRS nor the US Department of Probation 
has advised respondent of the need to amend his 2003 and 2004 taxes.” 
{¶ 22} We accept these stipulations and find that respondent violated DR 
1-102(A)(4) and (6). 
Sanction 
{¶ 23} In determining the appropriate sanction for a lawyer’s misconduct, 
we consider sanctions imposed in similar cases and whether aggravating or 
mitigating factors under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B) weigh in favor of a harsher or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
more lenient disposition.  Citing no aggravating features, the parties stipulated to 
the mitigating factors that respondent (1) does not have a prior disciplinary 
record, (2) provided full and free disclosure to the board with a cooperative 
attitude toward the proceedings, and (3) offered positive character evidence.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (e). 
{¶ 24} The parties have also stipulated in mitigation that other penalties 
and sanctions have been imposed for respondent’s illegal conduct ⎯ he was 
sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay a $4,000 fine.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f).  Although this is true, the punishment was for only a 
portion of the crimes committed.  As part of a plea agreement with prosecutors, 
respondent pleaded guilty to structuring $32,000 in transactions from September 
23 through 27, 2002, but he admits in the stipulations in this case that he 
structured other transactions as well.  This reduces the weight of that mitigating 
factor. 
{¶ 25} We also find a number of aggravating factors applicable to this 
case that the parties, panel, and board do not mention.  First, although 
respondent’s motive for illegally structuring financial transactions is not clear 
from the record before us, the  bill of information to which he pleaded guilty 
stated that he structured the $32,000 transaction by making each deposit “into 
another individual’s savings account.”  Respondent apparently thought it was 
worth the risk of prosecution for evading the reporting requirements for domestic 
financial institutions.  His criminal conduct thus manifests dishonest and selfish 
motives, aggravating factors under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  Respondent 
also engaged in his illegal activity over a five-month period, making 23 separate 
deposits at various banks, which constitutes a pattern of misconduct, an 
aggravating factor under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c). An indefinite suspension 
is therefore appropriate. 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
{¶ 26} We accept the parties’ proposal to credit respondent for his interim 
felony suspension.  In their stipulations, the parties list the following cases in 
which lawyers who were convicted of felonies were given credit for the time their 
licenses were under interim suspensions: 
{¶ 27} “In Disciplinary Counsel v. Blaszak, 104 Ohio St.3d. 330, 819 
N.E.2d 689, 2004-Ohio-6593, the Supreme Court of Ohio imposed a two-year 
suspension with credit for time served after the respondent pled guilty to selling 
witness testimony in a pending case.  In Cuyahoga County Bar Assn. v. Garfield, 
109 Ohio St.3d 103, 846 N.E.2d 45, 2006-Ohio-1935, the Ohio Supreme Court 
imposed an 18-month suspension with credit for time served after finding that the 
respondent pled guilty to one count of bank fraud for pledging a company’s 
certificate of deposit as collateral for a personal loan.  Id.  In Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Petroff, 85 Ohio St.3d 396, 709 N.E.2d 111, 1999-Ohio-400, the Ohio Supreme 
Court suspended Mark Petroff for one year with credit for time served after the 
respondent pled guilty to attempting to evade federal income taxes.  Id.  After 
Attorney William Seall was sentenced to four months in prison and a $7,000 fine 
for conspiring to commit tax fraud, the Supreme Court of Ohio suspended Seall 
for one year with credit for time served under the interim suspension.  Dayton Bar 
Assn. v. Seall, 81 Ohio St.3d 280, 690 N.E.2d 1271, 1998-Ohio-630.” 
{¶ 28} Respondent is therefore indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio; however, we grant credit for the time he has served under the 
February 15, 2008 interim suspension order, In re Bennett, 117 Ohio St.3d 1401, 
2008-Ohio-594, 881 N.E.2d 270, toward the two-year period that respondent must 
wait before petitioning for reinstatement under Gov.Bar R. V(10)(B).  Respondent 
may petition for reinstatement upon completion of respondent’s supervised 
release.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O'DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would impose the one-year suspension 
recommended by the board. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caliguri, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Clyde Bennett II, pro se. 
______________________