[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Curry, 112 Ohio St.3d 130, 2006-Ohio-6517.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. CURRY. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Curry, 112 Ohio St.3d 130, 2006-Ohio-6517.] 

Attorneys — Misconduct — Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice 

law — Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation — One-year 

suspension with reinstatement conditioned. 

(No. 2006-1178 — Submitted September 20, 2006 — Decided 

December 27, 2006.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-070. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Charles Eric Curry, last known address in 

Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0062864, was admitted to the 

practice of law in Ohio in 1994. On November 8, 2004, we suspended 

respondent’s license to practice for an interim period, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 

V(5)(A)(4), upon notice that he had been adjudicated in default of a support order 

for one of his children. See In re Curry, 103 Ohio St.3d 1521, 2004-Ohio-5853, 

817 N.E.2d 405. On July 11, 2005, we issued a second interim suspension order, 

also pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), upon notice that respondent had been 

adjudicated in default of a support order for a second child. See In re Curry, 106 

Ohio St.3d 1454, 2005-Ohio-3493, 830 N.E.2d 1163. 

{¶ 2} On August 8, 2005, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged 

respondent with two counts of professional misconduct, both involving his failure 

to pay child support as ordered and his failure to respond to inquiries during 

relator’s investigation of this misconduct. Relator attempted to serve respondent 

with the complaint by certified mail at the residence and business addresses on 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

file for him with the Attorney Registration Section. Respondent had earlier 

signed a certified receipt for a letter of inquiry at one of these addresses. These 

attempts failed, and relator perfected service on respondent through the Clerk of 

the Supreme Court, who is deemed the agent for service of notice for nonresident 

attorneys and those who have concealed their whereabouts. Gov.Bar R. 

V(11)(B). 

{¶ 3} Respondent did not answer the complaint, and relator moved for 

default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). A master commissioner appointed by the 

Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline granted the motion, making 

findings of misconduct and recommending a sanction. The board adopted the 

master commissioner’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 4} Relator’s complaint charged that respondent’s failure to comply 

with the two support orders violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that 

adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and that he had also 

violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate in a disciplinary 

investigation). 

{¶ 5} As to Count I, evidence established that on September 15, 2004, 

the Mahoning County Child Support Enforcement Agency (“MCCSEA”) issued a 

Notice to Obligor of Default and Potential Action regarding respondent’s failure 

to pay child support for his child. The notice certified an arrearage of $33,337.67 

and established a current child-support obligation of $465 per month. 

{¶ 6} Respondent has not submitted to the board (1) a certified copy of a 

judgment entry reversing the determination of default as to his child-support 

obligation, (2) a notice from a court or child-support enforcement agency that 

respondent is no longer in default of the child-support order, or (3) a notice from a 

court or child-support enforcement agency that respondent is in compliance with a 

withholding or deduction notice to collect current support or any arrearage due 
January Term, 2006 

3 

under the child-support order that was in default. Gov.Bar R. V(5)(D)(1)(b) and 

(c). The board thus concluded that respondent remained in default of his childsupport obligation and that he had violated DR 1-102(A)(6). 

{¶ 7} On November 23, 2004, following up on our interim suspension 

order of November 8, 2004, relator sent a certified letter to respondent’s business 

address, as on file with the Attorney Registration Section, inquiring about his 

default on the child-support payments. Respondent received the letter but did not 

reply. On January 6, 2005, relator’s counsel spoke with respondent regarding his 

failure to respond, and respondent promised to cooperate and respond to the letter 

of inquiry within two weeks. He did not respond. On January 25, 2005, relator 

sent another certified letter urging respondent’s reply to his residence address as 

on file with the Attorney Registration Section. Respondent received the letter on 

January 28, 2005, but did not reply. 

{¶ 8} The board found that respondent had thereby violated Gov.Bar R. 

(V)(4)(G). 

{¶ 9} As to Count II, evidence established that on March 9, 2005, 

MCCSEA issued a Notice to Obligor of Default and Potential Action regarding 

respondent’s failure to pay child support for a second child. The notice certified 

an arrearage of $55,447.31 and established a current child-support obligation of 

$678.89 per month as of October 17, 2003. 

{¶ 10} Respondent has not submitted to the board (1) a certified copy of a 

judgment entry reversing the determination of default as to his child-support 

obligation, (2) a notice from a court or child-support enforcement agency that 

respondent is no longer in default of the child-support order, or (3) a notice from a 

court or child-support enforcement agency that respondent is in compliance with a 

withholding or deduction notice to collect current support or any arrearage due 

under the child-support order that was in default. Gov.Bar R. V(5)(D)(1)(b) and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

(c). The board thus concluded that respondent remained in default of his childsupport obligation and that he had violated DR 1-102(A)(6). 

{¶ 11} On February 23, 2005, following up on our interim suspension 

order of July 11, 2005, relator sent a certified letter to respondent’s residence 

address inquiring about his default on this child-support order. Respondent 

received the letter but did not reply. On April 5, 2005, relator sent a second 

certified letter of inquiry to respondent’s residence address. Respondent received 

the letter but did not reply. 

{¶ 12} The board found that respondent had thereby violated Gov.Bar R. 

V(4)(G). 

Recommended Sanction 

{¶ 13} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 

board weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors of his 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.”). 

{¶ 14} In aggravation, the board found that respondent had acted with a 

dishonest or selfish motive, that he had engaged in more than one offense 

representing a pattern of misconduct, and that he had not properly participated in 

the disciplinary process. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), and (e). 

Moreover, respondent failed to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, 

had harmed vulnerable victims, and had not made restitution. BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B)(1)(g), (h), and (i). The board further noted that respondent’s license had 

also been under suspension since December 2, 2005, for his failure to register 

with the Attorney Registration Section for the biennium commencing September 

1, 2005. See In re Attorney Registration Suspension, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-

Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671. 
January Term, 2006 

5 

{¶ 15} In mitigation, the board noted that respondent had no record of 

disciplinary measures for having violated the Disciplinary Rules in the course of 

his practice and representing clients. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). Also in 

mitigation, the board learned that respondent was age 40 in 1994 when he was 

admitted to the Ohio bar, and that he had spent the preceding approximately ten 

years pursuing his law degree while working in other employment. Respondent 

was apparently able to keep up with his child-support obligations during this 

period but had difficulty doing so once he entered the legal field. 

{¶ 16} Because of his reduced earnings, respondent tried to have his 

child-support payments lowered, but he was not successful. The Mahoning 

County Juvenile Court ruled that respondent’s income had fallen based on a 

voluntary career change and that the decrease therefore did not warrant 

modification. Thereafter, the court determined respondent’s child-support 

payments by imputing his former salary to him and averaging his income. 

{¶ 17} Relator reported in its motion for default that respondent may have 

started making small payments toward his child-support obligation relative to 

Count II. No notice sufficient for his reinstatement from either interim 

suspension, however, has been filed with this court. 

{¶ 18} Relator also advised that this court has not previously imposed a 

disciplinary sanction solely for a lawyer’s failure to pay child support and lack of 

cooperation in a disciplinary investigation. Relator cites People v. Spalsbury

(Colo.2005), 111 P.3d 1052, in which the Supreme Court of Colorado found that 

an attorney’s failure to comply with court-ordered child support warranted a 

suspension from the practice of law for one year and one day. The attorney in 

Spalsbury filed a response to the allegations but also did not appear at a hearing 

on sanctions and offered no mitigating evidence. 

{¶ 19} Relator has suggested that respondent receive a similar sanction — 

a one-year suspension with any reinstatement to be conditioned on his compliance 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

with the interim suspension orders issued in 2004 and 2005. The master 

commissioner agreed that a one-year suspension with conditional reinstatement 

was appropriate. Adopting the master commissioner’s report, the board also 

recommended a one-year suspension with conditions for reinstatement. 

Review 

{¶ 20} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) as found by the 

board. We further agree that the recommended sanction is appropriate. 

{¶ 21} The essence of this case is that respondent failed to comply with 

court-ordered child support and presented nothing in the way of extenuating 

circumstances to explain why he could not do so. The master commissioner aptly 

summarized respondent’s failings: 

{¶ 22} “While Respondent’s initial accumulation of child support 

arrearages may have resulted from a temporary decrease in the Respondent’s 

available income as the result of his change of employment which offered a 

potential for greater long range earnings, he has failed to adequately address his 

obligations to at least two of his children for the last 12 years while he has held 

his professional license to practice law. Furthermore, he has failed to come 

forward in these proceedings to offer any evidence in mitigation of a sanction to 

be imposed in these proceedings, and he not only has failed to cooperate in the 

disciplinary investigation, but has also misrepresented to Relator his intention to 

do so.” 

{¶ 23} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 

Ohio for a period of one year, with no credit for his interim suspension, and with 

any reinstatement to be on the condition that he proves compliance with all 

requirements imposed in our interim suspension order. Costs are taxed to 

respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2006 

7 

 LUNDBERG STRATTON and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent. 

__________________ 

 LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 

{¶ 24} For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Disciplinary 

Counsel v. Geer, 112 Ohio St.3d 124, 2006-Ohio-6516, 858 N.E.2d 388, I dissent 

and would leave respondent’s sanction as an interim suspension, rather than a 

finite suspension. As soon as respondent becomes current on his arrearage and 

current on his child-support obligations, I would allow him to provide proof of 

doing so and permit him to apply to be reinstated on the condition that he proves 

compliance with all the requirements imposed in this court’s interim suspension 

order. In so doing, respondent would be able to more quickly return to the 

practice of law and be able to earn a living and better provide for his children. I 

respectfully dissent. 

 LANZINGER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 

__________________ 

 Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 

Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

______________________