Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Lawrence

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. Lawrence, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-4605.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-4605 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LAWRENCE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lawrence, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-4605.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Felony conviction for filing false tax returns—Engaging 
in illegal conduct and in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation—Two-year suspension with credit for time served under 
interim felony suspension. 
(No. 2015-1640—Submitted October 28, 2015—Decided June 30, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2015-048. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Meredith Lynn Lawrence of Warsaw, Kentucky, 
Attorney Registration No. 0029098, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1977.  On July 27, 2015, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Lawrence with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
professional misconduct arising from his federal conviction on three counts of filing 
false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1). 
{¶ 2} In the complaint, relator alleged that after a two-week criminal trial in 
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, a jury found 
that Lawrence had knowingly underreported income from various businesses that 
he owned in whole or in part for the 2004, 2005, and 2006 tax years.  Some of the 
unreported income came from businesses that were tangentially related to his 
practice of law—including rental income that he received from other attorneys.  
Lawrence was convicted in July 2012 of three counts of filing false tax returns in 
violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) and sentenced to 27 months of incarceration on each 
count to be served concurrently, followed by a one-year term of supervised release.  
Lawrence was also ordered to pay a special assessment of $300 and restitution of 
$128,253.26 plus interest, which he paid in full by December 17, 2012.  Upon 
notification of his felony conviction, we suspended his license on an interim basis 
effective November 29, 2012.  In re Lawrence, 133 Ohio St.3d 1496, 2012-Ohio-
5492, 978 N.E.2d 914. 
{¶ 3} Lawrence’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Sixth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Lawrence, 557 Fed.Appx. 520 (6th 
Cir.2014), and the Supreme Court of the United States denied his petition for a writ 
of certiorari, Lawrence v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 223, 190 L.Ed.2d 
133 (2014).  Lawrence also moved the federal district court for a new trial in 
December 2014, claiming that the certified public accountant he hired to file 
amended tax returns for 2004, 2005, and 2006 determined that he had actually 
overreported his income during those years.  He appealed the court’s denial of that 
motion to the Sixth Circuit.1  Lawrence was released from the custody of the 
                                                 
1 That appeal was still pending when the parties filed their consent-to-discipline agreement.  The 
Sixth Circuit, however, has since affirmed the district court’s order denying Lawrence’s motion for 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
Federal Bureau of Prisons on February 13, 2015, and began serving his one-year 
term of supervised release. 
{¶ 4} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct considered the cause on 
the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Gov.Bar R. V(16). 
{¶ 5} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Lawrence stipulates to the 
facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct violated DR  
1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in illegal conduct involving moral 
turpitude) and 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
{¶ 6} The parties stipulate that the mitigating factors include the absence of 
a prior disciplinary record, Lawrence’s timely, good-faith effort to make restitution 
or rectify the consequences of his misconduct, his cooperative attitude toward the 
proceedings, evidence of his good character and reputation apart from the charged 
misconduct, the imposition of other penalties, and the absence of harm to his 
clients.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6).  The parties agree that 
just one aggravating factor is present—that Lawrence engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3).  Based upon Lawrence’s stipulated 
misconduct and the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, the parties 
stipulate that the appropriate sanction for Lawrence’s misconduct is a two-year 
suspension from the practice of law, with no portion of the suspension stayed.  They 
further agree that in light of the mitigating factors enumerated above, Lawrence 
should receive credit for the time served under his interim felony suspension, which 
commenced on November 29, 2012. 
{¶ 7} The panel and the board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to Gov.Bar R. V(16) and recommend that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety.  In support of this recommendation, the panel referred to 
                                                 
a new trial, United States v. Lawrence, 6th Cir. No. 15-5126 (Oct. 2, 2015), and has denied 
Lawrence’s petition for en banc rehearing. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Disciplinary Counsel v. Jacobs, 140 Ohio St.3d 2, 2014-Ohio-2137, 14 N.E.3d 984.  
In that case, Jacobs filed four false income-tax returns, but he pleaded guilty to a 
federal information and was convicted of a single violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201(1).  
He was sentenced to 12 months and one day in prison and paid a special assessment 
and restitution promptly after sentencing.  We suspended Jacobs from the practice 
of law for two years, but we gave him credit for time served under his interim felony 
suspension.  Id. at ¶ 26. 
{¶ 8} We agree that Lawrence violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and (4) and that his 
misconduct warrants a two-year suspension.  In light of the significant mitigating 
factors present, we also agree that Lawrence should receive credit for the time 
served under his interim felony suspension.  Therefore, we adopt the parties’ 
consent-to-discipline agreement. 
{¶ 9} Accordingly, Meredith Lynn Lawrence is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law for a period of two years with credit for the time served under the 
interim suspension that began on November 29, 2012.  Costs are taxed to Lawrence. 
Judgment accordingly. 
PFEIFER, LANZINGER, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL and KENNEDY, JJ., dissent and would 
remand the cause to the Board of Professional Conduct to reconsider the grant of 
credit for time served under interim suspension. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Helmer, Martins, Rice & Popham Co., L.P.A., and James B. Helmer Jr., for 
respondent. 
_________________