158 N.E.2d 361
D.D. No. 9Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided May 6, 1959.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disbarment — Series of acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The relator, the Stark County Bar Association, filed two complaints against the respondent, an attorney at law, charging him with misconduct in the office of attorney. The first complaint contains 15 charges and the second complaint three charges. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found respondent guilty of eight of the charges in the first complaint and of two of the charges in the second complaint.
The board found that respondent was guilty of serving intoxicating liquor to a minor and that the offense involved moral turpitude; that respondent was guilty of intimidating a witness in violation of Section 2917.07, Revised Code, and Canon 39 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; that he advanced money to a client with an agreement that if no settlement was obtained the money need not be repaid, in violation of Canon 42; that he solicited professional employment in violation of Canon 27, that he was guilty of stirring up litigation in violation of Canon 28; that he violated his oath of office in violation of Canon 22 relative to candor and fairness; that he violated Canon 6 relative to adverse influences and conflicting interests; that he was guilty of receiving stolen goods; and that he aided and abetted in procuring others to commit perjury.
Page 202
From the foregoing findings the board determined that respondent was guilty of misconduct as defined by Section 5 of Rule XXVII of this court on disciplinary procedure and recommended that he be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.
The cause is before this court on objections by respondent to the findings and recommendation of the board.
Mr. Edgar W. Jones, Mr. Paul M. Perkins, Mr. Dan M. Belden, Mr. E. Robert Schellhase and Mr. Donald E. Fiely, for relator.
Mr. Ralph W. Ross, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
In view of statements in the opinion in State v. Morello, post, 213, to the effect that scienter need not be proved in order to sustain a conviction for selling intoxicants to a minor, some doubt has been expressed by some members of the court as to whether conviction of the offense of selling intoxicants to a minor shows moral turpitude in the instant case. However, since the court is of the opinion that a substantial number of the findings of the board on the other charges are sufficient to support the recommendation of the board, we do not find it necessary to pass on that question at this time.
The objections to the findings and recommendation of the board are overruled, the report of the board is confirmed, and judgment is rendered accordingly.
Report confirmed and judgment accordingly.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL and HERBERT, JJ., concur.
PECK, J., not participating.
Page 203