Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Bein

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bein, 105 Ohio St.3d 62, 2004-Ohio-7012.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL V. BEIN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bein, 105 Ohio St.3d 62, 2004-Ohio-7012.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Multiple criminal 
convictions — Engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude — 
Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty or deceit — Engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law. 
(No. 2004-1012 — Submitted October 13, 2004 — Decided December 29, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-041. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, William Sam Bein of Beachwood, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0033234, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1978.  In 1995, we 
suspended respondent’s license to practice law after he failed to comply with the 
continuing legal education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X for the 1992-1993 
reporting period.  In re Report of Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn. (1995), 74 
Ohio St.3d 1426, 655 N.E.2d 1311.  In 2002, we reinstated respondent’s license to 
practice law after he complied with the requirements for reinstatement set forth in 
Gov.Bar R. X(7).  In re Report of Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn. (2002), 94 
Ohio St.3d 1492, 763 N.E.2d 1188.  On December 27, 2002, we imposed an 
interim suspension under Gov.Bar R V(5) after we received notice that respondent 
had been convicted of a felony offense.  See In re Bein, 97 Ohio St.3d 1497, 
2002-Ohio-7200, 780 N.E.2d 602. 
{¶ 2} In 2003, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with 
professional misconduct.  The parties have signed a statement stipulating to the 
following facts: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} In 1995, respondent entered pleas of guilty to two federal criminal 
charges in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, case 
No. 94-214.  Those criminal offenses were (1) conspiracy to engage in the 
interstate transportation of stolen property, a violation of Sections 371 and 2314, 
Title 18, U.S.Code, and (2) conspiracy to conduct financial transactions for stolen 
goods (money laundering), a violation of Section 1956(h), Title 18, U.S.Code.  
Respondent was sentenced to a term of five years of probation with a special 
condition of six months of home detention.  He was also required to forfeit 
$150,000 to the United States government. 
{¶ 4} The crimes occurred between 1989 and 1994.  Respondent 
willfully and knowingly conspired with others in an illegal commercial enterprise 
involving the interstate transportation and sale of stolen over-the-counter 
pharmaceuticals, health and beauty aids, and sundry items such as film and 
batteries.  He and his wife paid for the goods that they knew or should have 
known were stolen, and they in turn resold those goods at a higher price to 
wholesalers who repackaged the goods and returned them to the legitimate stream 
of commerce. 
{¶ 5} Although respondent was sentenced in 1996, relator did not learn 
about the federal convictions until 2002, and for that reason, notification to this 
court under Gov.Bar R. V(5) was delayed.  Once relator learned about the 
convictions and advised this court, we imposed the interim-suspension order in 
December 2002. 
{¶ 6} Relator alleged in 2003 that respondent had violated four 
Disciplinary Rules:  DR 1-102(A)(3) (barring illegal conduct involving moral 
turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (barring conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on a 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and 1-103(A) (requiring an attorney to report 
any violation of DR 1-102 to an authority empowered to investigate it). 
January Term, 2004 
3 
{¶ 7} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court heard testimony in December 2003 about 
respondent’s actions.  Based on respondent’s admissions and on testimony at the 
hearing, the panel unanimously found that respondent had violated DR 1-
102(A)(3), (4), and (6), but found that the alleged violation of DR 1-103(A) had 
not been proven by clear and convincing evidence.  That charge was therefore 
dismissed.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct. 
{¶ 8} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case.  See 
Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Among the relevant aggravating factors, the panel found 
that respondent had shown no remorse for his crimes and had tried to downplay 
the role that he played in the criminal conspiracy.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g).  
His actions reflected a selfish motive, according to the panel, and he had engaged 
in a pattern of misconduct and had committed multiple offenses.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), and (d).  Also, the retail stores that had been 
victimized by the thefts and the conspiracy suffered significant financial harm.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h). 
{¶ 9} On the mitigating side of the equation, the panel noted that 
respondent had no prior disciplinary record, aside from his continuing-legal-
education suspension, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), and found that he had 
generally been cooperative with the disciplinary process.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(d).  Also, respondent had been punished in federal court for his crimes.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f). 
{¶ 10} The panel recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred, 
and the board adopted that recommendation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} Respondent has filed objections to the board’s recommendation, 
and the relator has responded to those objections.  After reviewing the matter and 
after hearing oral argument, we find that respondent did indeed commit the 
misconduct found by the board, and we conclude that disbarment is the 
appropriate sanction. 
{¶ 12} An attorney who turns to crime and is convicted of theft offenses 
should be disbarred.  See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Blake, 100 Ohio St.3d 298, 
2003-Ohio-5755, 798 N.E.2d 610, ¶ 7.  To be sure, respondent contends that he 
was not solely responsible for the financial losses incurred by the retail businesses 
that were the victims of his crimes, but he cannot deny that he continued to 
participate in those crimes over several years and that the total losses from the 
conspiracy reached into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
{¶ 13} A lawyer who engages in the kind of criminal conduct committed 
by respondent violates the duty to maintain personal honesty and integrity, which 
is one of the most basic professional obligations owed by lawyers to the public.  
Respondent’s misconduct was harmful not only to the businesses affected but also 
to the legal profession, which is and ought to be a high calling dedicated to the 
service of clients and the public good. 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
William Sam Bein, pro se. 
_____________________