Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Keith

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Keith, 92 Ohio St.3d 404, 2001-Ohio-194.] 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. KEITH. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Keith (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 404.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Conviction on five 
counts of arson and one count of grand theft. 
(No. 00-2250 — Submitted February 7, 2001 — Decided July 18, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-65. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  After respondent, Jeffrey Carl Keith, then of Parma, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0007885, was convicted on six felony counts, we 
suspended him, effective July 13, 1995, indefinitely from the practice of law in 
Ohio pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(3).  In re Keith (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 1555, 
651 N.E.2d 1013.  On August 7, 1995, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 
filed a complaint charging that respondent’s convictions showed that he violated 
DR 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving moral 
turpitude), 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 any activity that adversely reflects upon the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law).  Respondent answered, and requested that the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) 
stay disciplinary proceedings until his appeal of these convictions was decided. 
The board granted the stay on December 1, 1995. 
 
After the Supreme Court of Florida disbarred respondent in Florida, we 
suspended respondent from the practice of law in Ohio on November 24, 1998, 
pursuant to the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4). 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Keith (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1216, 703 N.E.2d 317.  On 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
relator’s motion we later dismissed that order of suspension and declared that the 
order of July 13, 1995 remained in full force and effect.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Keith (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 1414, 706 N.E.2d 1275, (the date reflected in that 
entry, July 31, 1995 is incorrect). 
 
On August 30, 1999, the board dissolved the stay of the disciplinary action 
and directed that it proceed.  A panel of the board heard the matter on November 
22, 2000.  The panel found that respondent was convicted on five counts of arson 
and one count of grand theft.  Respondent was fined $5,000 and sentenced to five, 
two-year terms in prison on five of the charges and fined $7,500 and sentenced to 
five to fifteen years in prison on the sixth charge.  He was also ordered to 
reimburse the Cleveland Fire Department $33,000.  The panel concluded that 
these convictions constituted violations of the Disciplinary Rules as charged.  In 
mitigation the panel noted that respondent had no prior disciplinary complaints 
filed against him and that he cooperated with relator’s investigation.  In addition, 
the panel stated that because some witnesses in his felony trial had recanted their 
testimony, respondent’s convictions might possibly be set aside at a future date.  
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
 
In considering this matter we not only reviewed the record before the 
panel and the board, but also took judicial notice of State of Ohio v. Keith (1997), 
1997 WL 113755 (Ohio App. Dist.8).  In that case, when the Eighth District Court 
of Appeals affirmed respondent’s conviction on five counts of arson and one 
count of grand theft, it recited the facts that supported the trial court’s decision.  It 
noted that over a two year period beginning in 1992, by setting afire and slashing 
tires, respondent destroyed or damaged various automobiles of friends of Ms. 
Jennie Baker, a woman who left him after a two year abusive relationship that 
began in 1990.  Moreover, said the appellate court, in and after 1992 respondent 
January Term, 2001 
3 
both stalked Baker, and subjected her to physical and psychological abuse 
including beating her numerous times, threatening to douse her with gasoline and 
set her on fire, and distributing leaflets to her neighbors claiming that she was a 
drug user. 
 
We therefore adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, but believe 
that respondent should receive a more severe sanction than an indefinite 
suspension.  Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law 
in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Jeffrey Carl Keith, pro se. 
__________________