Opinion ID: 1438900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Disciplinary Panel Hearing and Recommendation

Text: On or about October 3, 2007, the OCDC filed an information against Zink alleging that: (1) Zink was guilty of professional misconduct under Rule 4-8.4(a) by violating Rule 4-1.4 in that he failed to tell Hart of the limitations on his conduct when he knew she expected assistance not permitted by the rules of professional conduct; (2) Zink violated Rule 4-3.5 by seeking to influence an official by means prohibited by law; (3) Zink violated Rule 4-4.1 in making untruthful statements of material fact during his interviews with the FBI and United States Attorney's Office; (4) Zink violated Rule 4-8.4(c) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation when he made untruthful statements of material fact to the FBI and United States Attorney's Office; (5) Zink violated Rule 4-8.4(d) when he engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice when he attempted to reduce Hart's charges in exchange for sports memorabilia and; (6) Zink violated Rule 4-8.4(e) when he told Hart that he could obtain a reduction on her felony charges in exchange for the sports memorabilia. A hearing was held before the disciplinary hearing panel on June 26, 2008. The panel found that all of the charges against Zink were established by a preponderance of the evidence except for the alleged violation of Rule 4-3.5, seeking to influence an official by means prohibited by law, The panel recommended that Zink be retroactively suspended from the practice of law for a period of 12 months to commence June 25, 2007, and to end June 26, 2008. This retroactive suspension coincided with the time period that Zink abstained from practice pursuant to his pretrial diversion agreement with the United States attorney's office. The panel also recommended that Zink complete six hours of ethics CLE and that Zink comply with all conditions of Rule 5.28 if he applies for reinstatement. On or about September 25, 2008, pursuant to Rule 5.19, OCDC rejected the panel's decision and filed the complete record before this Court.