[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lewis, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2024.] 

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. 2018-OHIO-2024

LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. LEWIS.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lewis, Slip Opinion No. 

2018-Ohio-2024.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 

including committing an illegal act and engaging in conduct involving 

dishonesty—Submitting a false written witness statement to police—Twoyear suspension, with six months stayed on conditions.

(No. 2017-1419—Submitted November 21, 2017—Decided May 30, 2018.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 

Court, No. 2016-033. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Kenneth James Lewis, of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0073002, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2000. In 

2009, we suspended him for one year after finding that he had forged a judge’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

signature on a previously time-stamped judgment entry. Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. 

Lewis, 121 Ohio St.3d 596, 2009-Ohio-1765, 906 N.E.2d 1102. 

{¶ 2} In April 2017, relator, Lorain County Bar Association, charged Lewis 

with violating multiple professional-conduct rules for, among other things, giving 

a false written witness statement about an alcohol-related traffic incident. Lewis 

stipulated to some, but not all, of the charged misconduct, and the matter proceeded 

to a hearing before a three-member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct. 

The panel found that Lewis engaged in the stipulated misconduct, dismissed all 

other counts against him, and recommended that we suspend him for two years, 

with the final six months stayed on conditions. The board issued a report adopting 

the panel’s findings and recommended sanction, and neither party has objected to 

the board’s report. 

{¶ 3} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of 

misconduct and recommended sanction. 

Misconduct

{¶ 4} At around 1:00 a.m. on June 8, 2016, Lewis and another attorney, 

Heather Wilsey, left a bar in Elyria, Ohio, and entered Lewis’s car.1

 According to 

Lewis, they were both intoxicated and Wilsey was driving. Wilsey lost control of 

the car, and it struck a utility pole and ended up in a tree lawn on the other side of 

the street, rendering the vehicle inoperable. Shortly after the accident, an Elyria 

police officer observed Lewis and Wilsey walking away from the scene and stopped 

them for questioning. 

{¶ 5} At Lewis’s disciplinary hearing, two Elyria police officers testified 

that during their questioning of Lewis and Wilsey at the scene, Lewis told them that 

an unknown African American man had been driving the car at the time of the 

 

1

 Relator filed a separate disciplinary action against Wilsey. But according to the board’s report—

and as substantiated by evidence in the record—the action against Wilsey was dismissed after she 

died of an apparent drug overdose during the pendency of her case. 
January Term, 2018 

3

accident and that Lewis and Wilsey were only passengers in the vehicle. Lewis 

testified, however, that it was Wilsey—not him—who had told the officers that 

another man had been driving the car and that he had merely confirmed her story 

by telling an officer “that it happened just like she said it did.” Regardless, Lewis 

admitted that the following day, he submitted a false written witness statement to 

the police. Specifically, Lewis affirmatively declared in his written statement that 

on the night of the accident, he had given his car keys to an unknown man who 

agreed to drive Lewis and Wilsey to her home, that the unknown man crashed 

Lewis’s car, that Lewis sat in the back seat and Wilsey sat in the passenger seat, 

and that the man left the scene after the accident. According to Lewis, he made the 

false statements to protect Wilsey, with whom he had recently begun a romantic 

relationship. 

{¶ 6} The police, however, had obtained a video recording from the bar 

showing that Lewis and Wilsey had left the establishment by themselves just prior 

to the accident, with Wilsey driving. Therefore, immediately after Lewis gave the 

false written statement at the Elyria police station, the police arrested him for 

obstructing official business, a second-degree misdemeanor. Relator subsequently 

opened a disciplinary investigation regarding the pending charge. 

{¶ 7} On September 12, 2016—during the pendency of the Elyria case and 

this disciplinary matter—Lewis and Wilsey were involved in another alcoholrelated traffic incident, and an officer with the Brunswick Hills police department 

arrested Lewis for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 

(“OVI”). Four days later, on September 16, Lewis appeared in Medina Municipal 

Court and entered a no-contest plea to the OVI charge. The court found him guilty, 

suspended his driver’s license, and imposed a fine. Lewis did not voluntarily 

disclose his OVI conviction to relator, although relator later learned of the 

conviction from another source. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

{¶ 8} On September 20, 2016—just four days after Lewis’s OVI conviction 

in the Medina court—he appeared in Elyria Municipal Court and entered a nocontest plea to the charge of obstructing official business. The court found him 

guilty and later sentenced him to 90 days in jail with 80 days suspended and 

imposed a one-year term of probation and a $750 fine. Lewis served his ten-day 

jail sentence in November and December 2016. 

{¶ 9} Lewis stipulated and the board found that by giving the false written 

statement to the Elyria police department, he violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) 

(prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the 

lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 

conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) 

(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 

administration of justice). We agree with the board’s findings of misconduct. 

Sanction

{¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 

several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 

aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 

imposed in similar cases. 

Aggravating and mitigating factors

{¶ 11} As aggravating factors, the board found that Lewis has a prior 

disciplinary record and that he acted with a dishonest and selfish motive. See

Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1) and (2). In mitigation, the board noted that Lewis 

submitted evidence establishing that he has a good reputation among his clients and 

also noted that criminal sanctions were imposed for his misconduct. See Gov.Bar 

R. V(13)(C)(5) and (6). The board refused to assign any aggravating or mitigating 

weight regarding Lewis’s cooperation during the disciplinary proceedings, finding 

that although he cooperated with relator regarding the Elyria incident, he should 
January Term, 2018 

5

have been more forthcoming with relator about his OVI conviction. See Gov.Bar 

R. V(13)(B)(5) and (C)(4). 

{¶ 12} The board also noted that Lewis took responsibility for his poor 

judgment, showed remorse, and appeared to be successfully addressing an alcohol 

addiction. Specifically, in February 2017, he completed a five-week intensiveoutpatient-treatment program for alcohol dependency, and in May 2017, he 

completed a 12-week outpatient/aftercare program. He also signed a contract with 

the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and, at the time of his disciplinary 

hearing, was active in Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”). The board did not find that 

Lewis’s alcohol dependency qualified as a mitigating factor under Gov.Bar R. 

V(13)(C)(7), likely because that rule requires a determination that the disorder 

contributed to his misconduct, and the board noted that there was no evidence that 

Lewis’s addiction caused him to give the false written statement to the police. 

Indeed, Lewis admitted that he had misrepresented the facts of the accident to 

protect Wilsey and that he was not intoxicated at the time he gave the false written 

statement. Nonetheless, the board considered Lewis’s successful treatment in 

recommending its sanction. 

Applicable precedent

{¶ 13} To support its recommended sanction, the board reviewed several 

cases imposing sanctions on attorneys with prior disciplinary records for dishonest 

conduct. For example, the board cited Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, 145 

Ohio St.3d 391, 2016-Ohio-536, 49 N.E.3d 1280, in which an attorney engaged in 

dishonest conduct toward a client, neglected two client matters, mishandled funds 

in his client trust account, and failed to cooperate in disciplinary investigations. We 

had previously disciplined the attorney in three other cases, including one matter in 

which he made a false statement on a government application. We indefinitely 

suspended him from the practice of law. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

{¶ 14} The board also cited Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marshall, 113 Ohio 

St.3d 54, 2007-Ohio-980, 862 N.E.2d 519, in which an attorney neglected two 

client matters and made a false statement to the relator during an investigation. We 

had previously disciplined the attorney for dishonesty, neglecting client matters, 

and other misconduct only a few years earlier. In mitigation, the board noted that 

the attorney had cooperated in the disciplinary process, but we gave little weight to 

his cooperation, based on the consideration that he had failed to appreciate the 

serious nature of his offenses. We suspended the attorney for two years. 

{¶ 15} Similar to the attorneys in DiMartino and Marshall, Lewis has 

previously been disciplined for dishonest conduct and is the subject of another 

disciplinary action for his dishonesty. The board found, however, that Lewis’s false 

written statement here was not as egregious as the attorneys’ misconduct in 

DiMartino and other cases in which we have imposed indefinite suspensions for 

attorneys with prior discipline. And considering that Lewis took responsibility for 

his actions, expressed remorse, and appeared to be sustaining a period of successful 

treatment for his addiction, the board concluded that a two-year suspension, with 

the final six months stayed on conditions, is the appropriate sanction in this case. 

{¶ 16} We agree with the board’s reasoning. “Respect for our profession is 

diminished with every deceitful act of a lawyer. We cannot expect citizens to trust 

that lawyers are honest if we have not * * * sanctioned those who are not.” 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237 

(1995). The board’s recommended sanction demonstrates to the bar and the public 

that deceitful conduct—even in the context of an attorney’s personal affairs—will 

not be tolerated. However, the sanction also gives Lewis the opportunity to practice 

law again if he continues with treatment for his alcohol addiction and avoids 

additional misconduct. Therefore, having reviewed the record and considered the 

sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, we adopt the board’s recommended 

sanction. 
January Term, 2018 

7

Conclusion

{¶ 17} For the reasons explained above, Kenneth James Lewis is hereby 

suspended from the practice of law for two years, with the final six months stayed 

on the conditions that he (1) comply with all terms of his OLAP contract and any 

extension of that contract, (2) continue attending AA meetings and stay in regular 

contact with his sponsor, and (3) refrain from further misconduct. In applying for 

reinstatement, Lewis must submit evidence demonstrating that he is able to return 

to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. Upon reinstatement, 

Lewis must submit to a two-year period of monitored probation in accordance with 

Gov.Bar R. V(21) to help ensure his continued abstinence from alcohol. If Lewis 

fails to comply with a condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve 

the entire two-year suspension. Costs are taxed to Lewis. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., 

concur. 

FRENCH, J., concurs in judgment only. 

DEGENARO, J., not participating. 

_________________ 

Wickens, Herzer, Panza, Cook & Batista Co. and Daniel A. Cook; Trigilio 

& Stephenson, P.L.L., and Richard Mellott Jr., Bar Counsel, for relator. 

Gallagher Sharp, L.L.P., Timothy T. Brick, and Kevin R. Marchaza, for 

respondent. 

_________________