Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Banks

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Banks, 94 Ohio St.3d 428, 2002-Ohio-1236.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. BANKS. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Banks (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 428.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Conviction of 
interstate transportation of stolen lap-top computers, in violation of Section 
2314, Title 18, U.S.Code. 
(No. 01-1857 — Submitted November 28, 2001 — Decided March 6, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court, No. 01-27. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On June 9, 1999, respondent, Christopher David Banks of Villa 
Hills, Kentucky, Attorney Registration No. 0011686, was indicted in the United 
States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, on four counts of interstate 
transportation of stolen lap-top computers in violation of Section 2314, Title 18, 
U.S.Code.  He was found guilty by a jury on two counts, sentenced to thirty-three 
months in prison, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $205,000.  On 
January 5, 2001, respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for an 
interim period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4).  In re Banks (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 
1401, 740 N.E.2d 674. 
 
On April 9, 2001, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct 
involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice.)  Respondent was served the complaint, 
but did not answer, and relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”) referred the matter to board member Jean M. McQuillan for disposition 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(2), and she submitted a report granting the motion 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
and adopting the relator’s recommendation of an indefinite suspension.  Upon review, 
the board found respondent in violation of the cited Disciplinary Rules, but 
recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in 
this state. 
 
We concur in the board’s findings of misconduct and its recommendation.  In 
sentencing respondent for the theft of these computers, United States District Judge 
Jennifer B. Coffman calculated the amount of victim loss at over $500,000.  She also 
cited four separate occasions during respondent’s trial wherein he gave testimony that 
he knew to be materially false.  Under circumstances such as these, we are compelled 
to impose our most severe penalty—disbarment. 
 
Accordingly, we find that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), and (5).  
We further order that respondent be 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. 
__________________ 
 
Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator. 
__________________