[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Forbes, 122 Ohio St.3d 171, 2009-Ohio-2623.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FORBES. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Forbes, 122 Ohio St.3d 171, 2009-Ohio-2623.] 

Attorney misconduct — Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to 

practice law — Six-month suspension, stayed on condition. 

(No. 2008-2103 — Submitted March 11, 2009 — Decided June 11, 2009.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-096. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, George L. Forbes of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0010716, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1962. In 

2007, he was convicted on four misdemeanor charges of filing a false financialdisclosure statement in violation of R.C. 102.02(D) and two misdemeanor charges 

of accepting gifts of such character as to influence the performance of his duties 

as a public official in violation of R.C. 102.03(E). 

{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 

recommends that we publicly reprimand respondent, based on findings that he 

violated DR 1-102(A)(6) by engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his 

fitness to practice law. We accept this finding of professional misconduct; 

however, respondent’s convictions warrant a more exacting sanction than the 

board recommended. To deter lawyers who work as public officials from 

violating R.C. 102.02(D) and 102.03(E) and to safeguard the public, we order a 

six-month suspension of respondent’s license to practice, with the suspension 

stayed on the condition that respondent refrain from further misconduct. 

{¶ 3} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent in a one-count 

complaint with having violated DR 1-102(A)(6) of the former Code of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

Professional Responsibility. A panel of board members heard the case and made 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. A majority of the panel recommended 

that respondent receive a public reprimand; a dissenting panel member 

recommended a six-month suspension of respondent’s license to practice. The 

board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and the majority’s 

recommendation. 

{¶ 4} The parties have not objected to the board’s report. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 5} Respondent was appointed in 1995 to the board of the Bureau of 

Workers’ Compensation Oversight Commission, an administrative agency created 

that year as a consequence of reorganization in the Bureau of Workers’ 

Compensation (“BWC”). He was also appointed to the oversight commission’s 

investment committee, which regularly met to review BWC staff 

recommendations for potential investment consultants and money managers in 

accordance with BWC investment policy. Respondent remained on the 

commission until his resignation in 2005. 

{¶ 6} As a member of the commission from 1995 through 2005, 

respondent was required under R.C. 102.02(A) to file with the Ohio Ethics 

Commission annual financial-disclosure statements. The parties stipulated that in 

filing financial-disclosure statements for these years, respondent knowingly failed 

to disclose sources of meal and travel expenses and to disclose creditors to whom 

he owed more than $1,000 as follows: 

{¶ 7} 1. “Clarke Blizzard and/or Mr. Blizzard’s affiliated companies, 

such as American Express and Northwinds Marketing as a source of gifts, meals, 

and/or travel expenses for the calendar years 1997 through 2004. The value of the 

gifts, meals, and/or travel was in excess of $6,000. 

{¶ 8} 2. “Patrick White of Great Lakes Capital Partners as a source of 

travel expense for the calendar years 2003 and 2004. 
January Term, 2009 

3 

{¶ 9} 3. “The BWC as a source of travel expense for the calendar years 

1995 through 2004, despite continuously applying for and receiving 

reimbursement expenses related to BWC business. 

{¶ 10} 4. “Creditors, including JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, and 

American Express for calendar years 1998 through 2005.” 

{¶ 11} At the time respondent received these gifts and loans, Blizzard, 

companies with which Blizzard was affiliated, and White were performing 

investment-related services for or soliciting investment-related business from the 

BWC. On July 3, 2007, the Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office charged 

respondent with the four violations of R.C. 102.02(D), which prohibits any person 

from knowingly filing a false financial-disclosure statement. At the same time, 

the prosecutor charged the two violations of R.C. 102.03(E), which prohibits any 

public official or employee from soliciting or accepting “anything of value that is 

of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon the 

public official or employee with respect to that person’s duties.” 

{¶ 12} On July 5, 2007, respondent pleaded guilty to the four R.C. 

102.02(D) charges and no contest to the two R.C. 102.03(E) charges. He was 

convicted of all six misdemeanors and sentenced the same day to 30 days in jail, 

with the sentence suspended. Respondent was also placed on probation for one 

year, ordered to pay $6,000 in restitution to the BWC, fined $6,000, and ordered 

to perform 60 hours of community service. He complied with the terms of his 

sentence, prompting the court to terminate his probation in November 2007, 

almost eight months early. 

{¶ 13} The board found that respondent’s acts and omissions in violation 

of R.C. 102.02(D) and 102.03(E) constituted conduct that adversely reflected on 

his fitness to practice law and thus contravened DR 1-102(A)(6). We agree that 

respondent committed this misconduct. 

Sanction 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

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

relevant factors, including the duties the lawyer violated and sanctions imposed in 

similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. In making a final determination, we also weigh 

evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in 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.”). 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 

N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. Because each disciplinary case is unique, we are not limited to 

the factors specified in the rule but may take into account “all relevant factors” in 

determining what sanction to impose. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 

{¶ 15} Respondent’s illegal acts reflected poorly on the legal profession 

and disserved the public interest. The often quoted rule in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 

Stein (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 77, 81, 58 O.O.2d 151, 278 N.E.2d 670, sets the 

standard: 

{¶ 16} “One of the fundamental tenets of the professional responsibility of 

a lawyer is that he should maintain a degree of personal and professional integrity 

that meets the highest standard. The integrity of the profession can be maintained 

only if the conduct of the individual attorney is above reproach. He should refrain 

from any illegal conduct. Anything short of this lessens public confidence in the 

legal profession—because obedience to the law exemplifies respect for the law.” 

{¶ 17} In recommending a public reprimand, the board relied on 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Taft, 112 Ohio St.3d 155, 2006-Ohio-6525, 858 N.E.2d 

414, in which Ohio’s then governor received a public reprimand after pleading no 

contest to, and being convicted on, four misdemeanor counts of filing false 

financial-disclosure statements in violation of R.C. 102.02(D). In that case, 

evidence suggested that the governor had not specifically intended to conceal the 

names of benefactors who had paid for certain golf-related expenses and items. 
January Term, 2009 

5 

Id. at ¶ 6, 11. Moreover, in that case, many factors militated in favor of a lighter 

sanction, including the fact that the parties had stipulated to a public reprimand in 

a consent-to-discipline agreement, the respondent had a previously unblemished 

career in public office, he had paid fines, he had repaid benefactors, and he had 

made a public apology in accordance with the sentencing court’s order. Id. at ¶ 7, 

10. 

{¶ 18} As the dissenting panel member in this case observed, however, 

respondent was not convicted on only the four counts of filing a false financialdisclosure statement. He was also convicted on two counts of accepting gratuities 

offered to curry favor and obtain substantial and improper influence in the 

performance of his duties as a public official—the very crime that the R.C. 

102.02(D) reporting requirement is in force to prevent, Taft, 112 Ohio St.3d 155, 

2006-Ohio-6525, 858 N.E.2d 414, ¶ 4. Of respondent’s no-contest plea to R.C. 

102.03(E), the dissent aptly reasoned: 

{¶ 19} “A lawyer cannot be allowed to admit the allegations of a criminal 

complaint in his criminal case and then disavow or explain away that admission in 

his disciplinary case. Once a lawyer enters a plea of guilty (or, I believe, no 

contest) to a criminal charge, the facts that formed the basis for that charge are 

established and indisputable for purposes of any ensuing disciplinary proceeding, 

and the lawyer cannot explain them away, as Mr. Forbes and his attorneys tried to 

do in this disciplinary proceeding. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Powers [119 Ohio 

St.3d 473, 2008-Ohio-4785, 895 N.E.2d 172, ¶ 22].” 

{¶ 20} Respondent conceded that he should have reported the following: 

(1) over $6,000 in meals and travel from Clarke Blizzard and affiliated entities, 

(2) three short private-plane trips, valued at $3,300, from Patrick White, (3) travel 

reimbursement from BWC, and (4) various credit card charges over $1,000. But 

his defense attorney testified as a witness and persuaded a majority of panel 

members that the actual monetary value of the gratuities amounted to far less than 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

the ethics-commission investigation seemed to substantiate. In particular, a 

majority of the panel did not believe that Blizzard, who had been convicted of 

felony bribery for his dealings with the BWC’s former chief financial officer, had 

spent at least $22,400 in travel and entertainment expenses for respondent. The 

defense attorney also persuaded a majority of the panel to believe that respondent 

was not in a position to nor did he steer work to either White or Blizzard. 

{¶ 21} The dissenting panel member was not so convinced. Citing 

respondent’s acknowledgement that he, along with other members of the 

oversight committee, had approved American Express, with whom Blizzard was 

affiliated, to manage up to $800 million in BWC funds, the dissenter accepted 

respondent’s pleas to criminal conduct as conclusive: 

{¶ 22} “Based on these facts, I believe the panel should reject Mr. Forbes’ 

assertion that the gifts, meals, and travel Mr. Blizzard and Mr. White bestowed on 

him had no substantial or improper influence over him. His no contest plea and 

conviction simply belie any such suggestion. * * * 

{¶ 23} “Moreover, far from accepting Mr. Forbes’ proffered attempt to 

explain away his no contest plea and conviction, I would treat his attempt to 

explain it away as an aggravating factor that, coupled with the fact he was 

convicted of two more offenses than Governor Taft, justifies a more severe 

sanction. At the very least, I believe Mr. Forbes’ attempt to explain away his two 

additional convictions constitutes a refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of 

his conduct. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g).” 

{¶ 24} We agree. “[A] disciplinary proceeding is not an appropriate 

forum in which to collaterally attack a criminal conviction.” Bar Assn. of Greater 

Cleveland v. Chvosta (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 429, 430, 16 O.O.3d 452, 406 N.E.2d 

524. The judgment entries of respondent’s convictions conclusively establish his 

guilt of the charged offenses. Accord Disciplinary Counsel v. McAuliffe, 121 

Ohio St.3d 315, 2009-Ohio-1151, 903 N.E.2d 1209, ¶ 23. And to the extent that 
January Term, 2009 

7 

respondent attempts to minimize his culpability, he fails to acknowledge it and 

thereby exhibits the aggravating feature set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g). 

{¶ 25} But after weighing the mitigating features of respondent’s case, we 

do not impose the six-month actual suspension advocated by the dissenting 

member of the panel. The board found five of the seven mitigating factors listed 

in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2) and nothing to weigh against him. Agreeing with 

the stipulations, the board found the factors in sections 10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), (e), 

and (f) of the rule to be present in this case: absence of prior disciplinary record, 

full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and cooperative attitude toward 

the disciplinary proceedings, restitution to the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, 

positive character and reputation evidence, and imposition of other penalties. 

{¶ 26} Respondent has a long history as a prominent attorney and 

defender of civil rights in Cleveland, including serving as president of the 

NAACP. He served on Cleveland City Council for 26 years, for the last 18 as 

council president. He has further contributed greatly to the Cleveland area 

throughout his lifetime and received numerous awards for his commitment to the 

community. 

{¶ 27} We see little chance that respondent will repeat the ethical 

mistakes committed in this case. But he compromised his duties to the public and 

the legal profession, and thus, a six-month suspension from practice, with the 

suspension stayed on the condition of no further misconduct, is appropriate. 

{¶ 28} We therefore suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio 

for six months; however, the suspension is stayed on the condition that respondent 

refrain from further acts and omissions constituting professional misconduct. If 

respondent fails to comply with this condition, the stay will be lifted, and 

respondent will serve the six-month suspension. 

{¶ 29} Costs are taxed to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8 

 MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, LANZINGER, and 

CUPP, JJ., concur. 

 PFEIFER and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent and would publicly reprimand the 

respondent. 

__________________ 

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

Chester, Willcox & Saxbe, L.L.P., Charles Rockwell Saxbe, and Joseph C. 

Pickens; and Clarence Rogers, for respondent. 

______________________