645 N.E.2d 1244
No. 94-1839Supreme Court of Ohio.Submitted January 10, 1995 —
Decided March 1, 1995.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-12.
Relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent, Robert W. Doyle of Minneapolis, Minnesota, Attorney Registration No. 0023624, with professional misconduct, including violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law), Gov.Bar R. VI(1) and (3) (sic VI[2]) (failure to register as an attorney for biennium period), and VII(2)(A) (practicing law without registration under Gov.Bar R. VI). Respondent received notice of the complaint against him, but failed to answer. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) heard the matter upon relator’s motion for default, filed pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).
The evidence submitted in support of the motion for default established that respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1974; however, he registered as “inactive” for the 1989-1991 biennium, see Gov.Bar R. VI(2), and has not registered at all for any period since. Respondent was also admitted to the Minnesota Bar for a time, but that state suspended his license as of January 1, 1992, because he failed to pay his registration fees. Despite his inactive status in Ohio and his suspension from the Minnesota Bar, respondent held himself out as a practicing attorney to individuals transacting an international sales agreement during and after December 1992.
Respondent’s company, Doyle International Development Corporation, was apparently retained to assist Memory Control Technology Corporation in the sale of a computer disk manufacturing line to a company in China. A dispute arose over the commission to be paid respondent for his services. In his efforts to resolve the matter, respondent either implied or represented in correspondence that he was a licensed and practicing attorney in good standing. Examples of these representations include:
Page 575
1. A letter dated December 11, 1992, in which respondent’s stationery advised that that he was “Admitted: U.S. Supreme Court, Minnesota, Ohio, and U.S. Patent Office.”
2. A letter dated December 23, 1992, in which respondent’s letterhead showed that he was an attorney at law.
3. A handwritten letter dated February 17, 1993, in which respondent discussed his standing as “an international lawyer.”
4. Four letters, dated March 6 and 8, 1993, and April 6 and 20, 1993, for which respondent again used stationery indicating that he was an attorney at law. In the March 6 letter, respondent described the suit he would bring over the commission dispute. In the March 8 letter, respondent discussed an associate in his “law practice.”
5. A letter dated April 29, 1993, in which respondent wrote that “[a]s a lawyer, I must uphold the laws of my country and respect the laws of other countries.”
The panel determined from this evidence that respondent had violated all the cited Disciplinary Rules and Rules for the Government of the Bar. Having no mitigating evidence to consider, the panel recommended that respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. The board adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation.
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Per Curiam.
Having reviewed the record, we concur in the board’s findings and its recommendation. Accordingly, we order that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.
Page 576