BAR ASSN. v. BENDIS, 70 Ohio St.2d 282 (1982)

438 N.E.2d 1361

BAR ASSOCIATION OF GREATER CLEVELAND v. BENDIS.

D.D. No. 82-19Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided June 30, 1982.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Acts warranting.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

Respondent, Robert I. Bendis, was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas of conspiracy in violation of Section 371, Title 18, U.S. Code, and transportation in interstate commerce of a security knowing the same to have been converted and taken by fraud in violation of Sections 2314 and 2, Title 18, U.S. Code. His conviction stems from his involvement in the negotiation of a $110,000 bank money order which was procured under false pretenses.[*]

Subsequently, relator, Bar Association of Greater Cleveland, filed a complaint against respondent with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (the board) alleging that respondent’s conduct constituted “illegal conduct involving moral turpitude” and “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” in violation of DR1-102 (A) (3) and (4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Based upon the evidence in the file and the testimony elicited at the private hearing held on this matter on December 18, 1981, the board recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.

[*] Respondent was convicted for his role in an elaborate scheme in which a person in need of a large sum of money was led to believe that in exchange for an advance fee (in this case, $110,000) a sizeable loan could be obtained. Respondent’s co-conspirators held themselves out as legitimate businessmen who could obtain the desired financing through the use of offshore investment companies. Respondent served as “legal advisor” in bringing about the financial transactions. The gist of the underlying fraud is, of course, that no loan was forthcoming.

Mr. John R. Jewitt, Jr., Mr. Creighton E. Miller, and Mr. Charles E. Merchant, for relator.

Mr. Robert I. Bendis, pro se.

Per Curiam.

As he did throughout his criminal trial in

Page 283

Kansas, respondent steadfastly denies any knowledge of the scheme to obtain the money order by fraudulent means. However, both fraud and conspiracy to defraud, as well as the element of knowledge, were established at the Kansas trial. Respondent may not use this disciplinary proceeding as an opportunity to collaterally attack his criminal conviction. Rather, application of Gov. R. V(8)(b) is appropriate. It states:

“A certified copy of a judgment entry of conviction of an offense shall be conclusive evidence of the commission of that offense in any disciplinary proceedings instituted against an attorney based upon the conviction.” (Emphasis added.)

In the present case, relator offered in evidence the judgment entry of respondent’s conviction. Inasmuch as proof of conviction is “conclusive evidence of the commission of that offense” pursuant to Gov. R. V(8)(b), proof of misconduct on the part of respondent and his violation of DR1-102(A)(3) and (4) is therefore established. Accordingly, it is the order of this court that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and KRUPANSKY, JJ., concur.

Page 284