[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Newman, 127 Ohio St.3d 123, 2010-Ohio-5034.] 

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. NEWMAN. 

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Newman, 

127 Ohio St.3d 123, 2010-Ohio-5034.] 

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite license suspension. 

(No. 2009-1917 — Submitted August 10, 2010 — Decided October 21, 2010.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-041. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, George W. Newman III of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0050769, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in October 

1964. In June 2009, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint 

charging respondent with violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer 

from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information from a 

disciplinary authority), 8.3(a) (requiring an attorney to report to disciplinary 

authority his own violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raise a 

question about his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), and 8.4(b) 

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

lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness). 

{¶ 2} Although the complaint was served on July 22, 2009, in 

accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B), respondent failed to file an answer. 

Therefore, in August 2009, relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 

V(6)(F). 

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

referred the default motion to a master commissioner, who made findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and a recommendation that the board indefinitely suspend 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

respondent from the practice of law. The board adopted the report and submitted 

the matter to this court. We found, however, that the record lacked sufficient 

sworn or certified evidence to support the allegations of misconduct, and we 

remanded the cause to the board for further proceedings consistent with our 

opinion. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Newman, 124 Ohio St.3d 505, 2010-Ohio-928, 

924 N.E.2d 359, ¶ 9. 

{¶ 4} On remand, relator amended its motion for default and submitted 

certified copies of respondent’s indictment, bill of particulars, plea agreement, 

and judgment entry of sentencing, as well as the affidavit of its investigator. 

Based upon this evidence, the master commissioner and the board once again 

recommend that we indefinitely suspend respondent. 

{¶ 5} We agree that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), 8.3(a), and 

8.4(b), as found by the board, and that his conduct warrants an indefinite 

suspension. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 6} The board found that in October 2006, respondent was indicted on 

seven counts of passing bad checks in violation of R.C. 2913.11(B) and three 

counts of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3). A bill of particulars alleged 

that he had engaged in a scheme by which he deposited checks drawn on closed 

accounts or accounts with insufficient funds into other bank accounts and then 

withdrew cash from those artificially inflated accounts, causing losses of 

$5,809.67 to Fifth Third Bank, $11,804 to U.S. Bank, and $4,459.99 to 

Huntington Bank. 

{¶ 7} Respondent pleaded guilty to three counts of theft, felonies of the 

fifth degree, in September 2007. The following month, he was sentenced to three 

years of community control and was ordered to pay restitution of $4,454.59 to 

Huntington Bank and $5,804.57 to Fifth Third Bank. He failed to notify any Ohio 

attorney disciplinary authority of his conviction. 
January Term, 2010 

3

{¶ 8} When the board brought respondent’s conviction to our attention, 

we imposed an interim felony suspension from the practice of law against 

respondent on February 2, 2009, and referred the matter to relator for 

investigation and commencement of this disciplinary proceeding. In re Newman, 

120 Ohio St.3d 1500, 2009-Ohio-381, 900 N.E.2d 618. 

{¶ 9} Respondent did not respond to the resulting disciplinary 

investigation, despite relator’s attempts to communicate with him via certified 

mail and telephone, and he did not file an answer to the complaint. The board 

also noted that respondent has failed to submit an affidavit confirming his 

compliance with our February 2, 2009 interim suspension order. The board 

concluded that these acts violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), 8.3(a), and 8.4(b). 

Sanction 

{¶ 10} 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 Section 10(B) 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. 

{¶ 11} In this case, respondent has committed illegal acts that adversely 

reflect on his honesty and trustworthiness by stealing approximately $22,000 from 

three banks and by failing to respond to the resulting disciplinary investigation. 

In aggravation, the board has found that he failed to cooperate in the disciplinary 

process. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e). And in mitigation of punishment, this is 

respondent’s only disciplinary violation in more than 45 years of practice. BCGD 

Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

{¶ 12} “An attorney who has been convicted of felony theft offenses has 

violated the basic professional duty to act with honesty and integrity.” Cincinnati 

Bar Assn. v. Blankemeyer, 109 Ohio St.3d 156, 2006-Ohio-2038, 846 N.E.2d 523, 

¶ 12. “One of the fundamental tenets of the professional responsibility of a lawyer 

is that [the lawyer] 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. [The lawyer] 

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.” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 77, 81, 58 

O.O.2d 151, 278 N.E.2d 670. 

{¶ 13} We have imposed an indefinite suspension for similar misconduct. 

See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Dragelevich, 106 Ohio St.3d 478, 2005-Ohio5515, 835 N.E.2d 1261, ¶ 3, 7 (imposing indefinite suspension on attorney who 

knowingly caused the odometer on a vehicle to be altered to reflect less than the 

actual mileage, a felony); Disciplinary Counsel v. Woods (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 

245, 247, 28 OBR 325, 503 N.E.2d 746 (imposing indefinite suspension on 

attorney convicted of theft, forgery, and uttering); Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Baxter

(1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 82, 83, 4 OBR 263, 446 N.E.2d 1121 (imposing indefinite 

suspension on attorney involved in a check-kiting scheme when $16,000 in 

restitution remained unpaid). 

{¶ 14} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and 

mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 

we adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusion that respondent violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), 8.3(a), and 8.4(b). Accordingly, George W. Newman III is 

indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio. As a 

condition of reinstatement, respondent shall pay restitution of $4,454.59 to 
January Term, 2010 

5

Huntington Bank and $5,804.57 to Fifth Third Bank. Costs are taxed to 

respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Naomi C. Dallob and Edwin Wilhite Patterson III, for relator. 

______________________