TOLEDO BAR ASSN. v. DOW, 60 Ohio St.3d 103 (1991)

573 N.E.2d 646

No. 90-2080Supreme Court of Ohio.Submitted January 8, 1991 —
Decided June 5, 1991.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice — Removal of clients’ criminal or traffic violation affidavits from the courthouse and keeping them in his possession, thus suspending all proceedings — Conduct contrary to a Disciplinary Rule.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 90-03.

On January 22, 1990, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint against respondent, Martin P. Dow, alleging violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 7-102(A)(8) (conduct contrary to a Disciplinary Rule). Concurrently, respondent and relator stipulated to the facts and violations alleged in the complaint. A hearing was held before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on June 21 to 23, 1990.

The charges against respondent and twelve others stemmed from a situation in the Toledo Municipal Court in which defense attorneys were entrusted with certain criminal and traffic affidavits[1] and failed to return them

Page 104

to the court. At a pretrial conference held on March 27, 1990, an agreement was reached that the matters would be heard together. Although contained in a single opinion, the panel’s findings and recommendations were made individually, based on each respondent’s involvement in the situation.

In this case, the parties stipulated that (1) respondent improperly removed seven of his clients’ affidavits from the courthouse record system and kept them in his possession, which had the effect of suspending all further proceedings against the clients; (2) upon inquiry by the clerk of court, respondent returned all the affidavits he had removed from the municipal court; (3) respondent admitted violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) and 7-102(A)(8); and (4) respondent should be publicly reprimanded.

At the hearing, respondent, an assistant public defender, testified that he took the affidavits to his office in the courthouse for a variety of reasons, such as to gain a continuance or wait for a specific judge.

The panel found that respondent intentionally removed the affidavits. Moreover, even though the vast majority of the cases that respondent handled in the Toledo Municipal Court were as a public defender, the seven affidavits in question were those of his private clients. However, the panel recommended the stipulated sanction of a public reprimand. The board adopted the findings and recommendations of the panel, and further recommended that costs of the disciplinary proceedings be taxed to respondent.

Frank E. Kane, Dale W. Fallat and John N. MacKay, for relator.

John Czarnecki, for respondent.

Per Curiam.

We concur with the findings and recommendation of the board; respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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