AKRON BAR ASSN. v. SPITTAL, 51 Ohio St.3d 121 (1990)

554 N.E.2d 1338

No. 89-2224Supreme Court of Ohio.Submitted February 14, 1990 —
Decided May 30, 1990.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Routinely and without justification referring to decisions by federal and Ohio judges as being the product of dishonesty, partiality, ignorance and incompetence — Routinely and without justification accusing judges and attorneys of lying.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 1-88-B.

In a complaint filed March 10, 1988, relator, Akron Bar Association, charged respondent, George W. Spittal, with eighteen substantive counts of misconduct, including, inter alia, violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 8-102(B) (knowingly making false statements against a judge or adjudicatory officer). The complaint alleged, in the main, that respondent had made

Page 122

numerous remarks impugning the integrity, impartiality, or intellect of various federal and Ohio judges. The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on October 7, 1988 and October 26, 1989.[1]

Before the panel, respondent defended his remarks by asserting that they were warranted by the circumstances in which he made them. The evidence, however, established that respondent routinely, and without justification, referred to the decisions made by federal and Ohio judges as being the product of dishonesty, partiality, ignorance, and incompetence. The evidence further established that respondent routinely, and without justification, accused judges and attorneys alike of lying. Indeed, the record manifests that respondent made these remarks simply because he disagreed with a judge’s decision or an attorney’s argument.

Based on the foregoing, the panel determined that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 8-102(B). Due to the number and seriousness of the violations, the panel recommended the sanction suggested by relator, an indefinite suspension. The board adopted the panel’s findings and its recommendation.

George A. Clark and George J. Emershaw, for relator.

George W. Spittal, pro se.

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree that respondent committed the misconduct found by the board. However, we find the flagrant disrespect that respondent has demonstrated toward the entire judicial system deserving of the legal profession’s most severe sanction. Accordingly, we order that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and RESNICK, JJ., concur.

H. BROWN, J., dissents.

H. BROWN, J. dissenting.

I would indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law as recommended by the panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court which heard the complaint and the board itself which adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation.

Page 123