Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Barron

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. BARRON. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Barron (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Practicing law while 
under suspension for failure to meet continuing legal education 
requirements. 
(No. 98-2215 — Submitted December 16, 1998 — Decided March 24, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-87. 
 
On June 18, 1993, we suspended respondent, Chris Marshall Barron of 
Akron, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0029287, from the practice of law for 
failure to meet his continuing legal education requirements for the 1990-1991 
reporting period and fined him $750.  In re Report of Comm. on Continuing Legal 
Edn. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 1513, 1515, 614 N.E.2d 760, 761.  On October 13, 
1997, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a complaint charging that respondent, 
while still under that suspension,  engaged in the practice of law by entering an 
appearance in the Akron Municipal Court in the case of Bell v. Kanaan, No. 
96CV09851, and by later advising Kanaan in that case.  Respondent was served 
with the complaint as provided in the Rules for the Government of the Bar and 
failed to file an answer.  Relator filed a motion for default, and the matter was 
referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of 
the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel found the facts as alleged and concluded that respondent had 
violated DR 1-102(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not attempt to circumvent a Disciplinary 
Rule through the actions of another), (4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), (5) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and (6) (a lawyer 
 
2
shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects upon the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law).  It recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law and remain subject to the order of June 18, 1993.  The board 
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
William M. Oldham and George W. Rooney, Jr., for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Practicing law while under suspension for failure to meet 
continuing legal education requirements and pay the imposed fine warranted 
indefinite suspension in Toledo Bar Assn. v. Christensen (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 71, 
671 N.E.2d 30, and such a sanction is also warranted in this case.  Respondent is 
hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio and remains 
subject to the conditions of our order of June 18, 1993.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.