Case Name: Bar Association of Greater Cleveland v. Esber
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1976-12-15
Citations: 48 Ohio St. 2d 231
Docket Number: D. D. No. 76-11
Parties: Bar Association of Greater Cleveland v. Esber.
Judges: Q'Ni~ir~~, C. J.; HER EI~, CoRI~ STERN, CE1EBREZZE, W. BROWN áncT P. BROWi~, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Second Series
Volume: 48
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
Bar Association of Greater Cleveland v. Esber.
(D. D. No. 76-11
Decided December 15, 1976.)
M'r. Michael I-Io'noha~i ai~d M~ Ediba~d Cass, for r~iator.
:Jl~ Edward M. Esber, pro se.

Opinion:
Per Curia'rn.
Even if we were persuaded by re'spOhd~-exit `~ `testimony before the panel' of the board of co~missioner~; Gov. B. V(8) (b) states that "[a] certified copy of a' judgrnéi~t entry of conviction of an offense shall be don-elusive evidence of the commission Of `that offense in any disciplinary proceeding instituted against an att~ne\' bá,sed u~on the conviction." `
Th~ Code of Professional Responsibility há~ be~n adojted by this court under Gov. B. flT(1). We find th~t i~espondent violated Canon 1, DR 1-102(A) (3), which ~tate~ th~ a; lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct iuvolv-iftg ~adtai turpitude.
Góv. R. 11(5) (a)' defines misedriduct a~s the comm!sL sjbh or conviction of a crime `involving moral `turpitude. Gov. R. V(6)(a) requires each attorney found guilty `of mis~ónduct to be disciplined. By his `conviction and ~ubse-quent incarceration, respo~Ient' has lessened public co~i,i'id~n~e. in the legal professidh ahd has reflected `substa~-ti~l discredit upon his fellow `la~yei~s.
W~ conclude that respoiident'inust `he permanently di's-. barred froth the practice Øf ~1aw.
Ju~g'~ne9zt accordi~g1y.
Q'Ni~ir~~, C. J.; HER EI~, CoRI~ STERN, CE1EBREZZE, W. BROWN áncT P. BROWi~, JJ., concur.