[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mecklenborg, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1908.]

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.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2014-O HIO -1908
D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . M ECKLENBORG

. [Until this opinion appears in the Oh io Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mecklenborg, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1908.] Attorney misconduct—Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law— Public reprimand. (No. 2012-1700—Submitted December 11, 2013—Decided May 8, 2014.)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-011.

____________________ Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} Respondent, Robert Paul Meckle nborg of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0021203, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1978. {¶ 2} On February 13, 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint alleging that Mecklenborg had been charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (“ OWI”) and subsequently made false declarations about the pendency of that action on his application to renew hisS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 driver’s license. In June 2012, the partie s entered into a consent-to-discipline agreement pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and Gov.Bar R. V(11)(A)(3)(c) in which they stipulated that the operative facts as alleged in the complaint are true, that Mecklenborg’s conduct violated Pr of.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and that the appropriate
sanction for his misconduct is a public reprimand. {¶ 3} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended that we adopt the consent-to-discipline agreement, but we rejected
the recommended sanction a nd remanded the matter for c onsideration of a harsher
sanction. Disciplinary Counsel v. Mecklenborg, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio1536, 986 N.E.2d 25. On remand, the parties ente red into stipulations of fact and misconduct and submitted stipulated exhibits , including 19 letters from his clients and colleagues attesting to Mecklenborg’s good character. The only witness to testify at the panel hearin g was Mecklenborg. The par ties jointly recommended a six-month suspension, all stayed. {¶ 4} After the hearing, the panel issued a report adopting the parties’ stipulations of fact and misconduct a nd recommending that Mecklenborg be suspended from the practice of law for six months, all stayed on the condition that
he commit no further misconduct. {¶ 5} On further review, however, the full board concluded that Mecklenborg had not engaged in an intenti onal act of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Therefore, the board vot ed to amend the panel’s findings of
fact and conclusions of law to dismi ss the charge alleging a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), adopt the panel’s remaining findings of fact and conclusions of law, and unanimously recommended that he be pub licly reprimanded for his
misconduct.January Term, 2014

3 {¶ 6} For the reasons that follow, we adopt the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction.
Misconduct {¶ 7} Mecklenborg had been arrested in Indiana and charged with OWI in April 2011. A blood sample obtained pursuant to Indiana’s implied-consent law indicated that Mecklenborg’s blood-al cohol level was .097 percent. At his arraignment, his driving privileges in Indiana were suspended because he had
refused to take a roadside breath test. {¶ 8} Four days after his arrest and arraignment in Indiana, Mecklenborg appeared at an Ohio Bureau of Motor Ve hicles licensing agency and applied to renew his expired Ohio driver’s license. As part of the application process, Mecklenborg signed a form containing pr eprinted statements that his driving privileges had not been suspended, revoked, or canceled and that he did not have pending citations for violations of any mo tor-vehicle laws or ordinances in Ohio or any other state. {¶ 9} In September 2011, Mecklenborg was charged with, entered a nocontest plea to, and was found guilty of a single violation of R.C. 4507.17 (prohibiting any person whose license is suspended or canceled from applying for or receiving a new license during the suspension or cancellation). The penalty for
this misdemeanor viol ation was a $50 fine. {¶ 10} The parties stipulated that the operative facts as alleged in the complaint are true and that Mecklenborg ’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and 8.4(h). The parties further stipulated that Mecklenborg acted on the advice of counsel when he sought to renew his Ohio driver’s license while his Indiana OWI case was pending and that he failed to read the entire application before signing it.
He testified that he was emotiona lly upset and embarrassed about the circumstances of his arrest, the publicit y it garnered, and the reactions of his family and the public. In response to the media attention, Mecklenborg tenderedS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 his resignation to the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, effective August 2, 2011. {¶ 11} The panel adopted the parties’ s tipulations of fact and misconduct
and recommended sanction. But the board f ound that in light of the facts that Mecklenborg had sought and acted on th e advice of counsel and signed a preprinted form provided by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, his conduct did not
constitute an intentional act of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. On these amended facts, the board voted to dismiss the charge alleging a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), but adopt the panel’s finding that Mecklenborg’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), and recommended a public reprimand. {¶ 12} Having thoroughly reviewed the r ecord, including the transcript of Mecklenborg’s testimony at the panel hearin g, we adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and dismiss the charge alleging a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c).
Sanction {¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli , 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. In making a final determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. {¶ 14} As mitigating factors, the parties have stipulated and the panel and board have found that Mecklenborg (1) ha s no prior disciplinary record, (2) did not act with a selfish or dishonest motive, (3) has made a full and free disclosure and demonstrated a cooperative attitude in the disciplinary proceedings, (4) has good character and a reputation for signif icant involvement in the community and is committed to public service, and (5) has been fined for his violation of R.C.January Term, 2014

5 4507.17 and has voluntarily resigned from th e Ohio House of Representatives as
the result of his misconduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), (e), and (f). No aggravating factors are present. {¶ 15} In response to our remand order, and based upon their stipulation that Mecklenborg violated both Prof .Cond.R. 8.4(c) and 8.4( h), the parties recommended that we impose a six-m onth fully stayed suspension for Mecklenborg’s misconduct. Having voted to dismiss the charge alleging a
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), however, the board unanimously recommends that we publicly reprimand Mecklenborg for his OWI and negligent misrepresentation of facts on his appli cation to renew his driver’s license. {¶ 16} We have publicly reprimanded a ttorneys who have notarized documents without having witnessed th e signatures—conduct that is arguably more egregious than Mecklenborg’s negligent misrepresentation to the Bureau of
Motor Vehicles. See, e.g. , Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Russell, 114 Ohio St.3d 171, 2007-Ohio-3603, 870 N.E.2d 1164 (publicly reprimanding a lawyer who notarized two deeds without having w itnessed the grantors’ signatures); Disciplinary Counsel v. Simon , 71 Ohio St.3d 437, 644 N.E.2d 309 (1994) (publicly reprimanding a lawyer who notariz ed the signatures of two grantors on a deed, though neither signature had been affixed in the lawyer’s presence). Moreover, a panel of 12 a ppellate court judges has pub licly reprimanded a justice
of this court who was convicted of driv ing while under the influence of alcohol. In re Complaint Against Resnick , 108 Ohio St.3d 160, 2005-Ohio-6800, 842 N.E.2d 31. Thus, we agree that a public re primand is the appropriate sanction for Mecklenborg’s misconduct. {¶ 17} Accordingly, we publicly reprima nd Robert Paul Mecklenborg. Costs are taxed to Mecklenborg. Judgment accordingly.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ.,

concur. O’C ONNOR , C.J., dissents and would fo llow the recommendation of the panel to impose a six-month suspension, all stayed.

____________________ Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel , and Joseph M. Caligiuri, Chief Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson and George D. Jonson, for respondent.

________________________