Opinion
D.D. No. 83-33
Decided January 25, 1984.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Purposeful and intentional deception — Theft of utilities' services.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
On September 16, 1983, a hearing was held before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline relative to a complaint filed by relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, against respondent, Brian Heekin. The original complaint and amendment thereto alleged the respondent had committed multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically DR 1-102(A)(3), (4) and (6).
These charges stem from activities which the respondent had undertaken in his capacity as president of the Cincinnati Riverfront Coliseum, Inc., and as a member of the Board of Directors and shareholder in the corporation. The respondent had from on or about August 18, 1978, until on or about January 6, 1983, directed the purposeful and intentional deception of two Cincinnati utility companies by ordering employees to tamper with the electric meters and later the water meters in the Riverfront Coliseum.
As a result of the theft of electric power the respondent was convicted of violating R.C. 4933.18 and sentenced to a term of two to five years, which sentence was suspended. Respondent was placed on three years probation and fined $2,500. Respondent was later convicted of tampering with the water meters at the Riverfront Coliseum and sentenced to a term of one year, which sentence was also suspended. Respondent was placed on one-year probation and fined $2,500. The total value of electric service which was received but unpaid as a result of respondent's activities was approximately $748,902. Approximately $28,056.05 in water services was received but unpaid.
At disciplinary hearings brought pursuant to the complaints filed against respondent, he chose not to testify and offered in mitigation only one witness who testified concerning respondent's sterling background and his attempt to save the Cincinnati Riverfront Coliseum from financial disaster. The board found that the respondent was guilty of the violations described in the original and amended complaints.
A majority of the panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board also recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Mr. John H. Burlew, Mr. James A. Vogele, Mr. Charles S. Kamine and Mr. Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator.
Mr. Jack C. Rubenstein, for respondent.
Mr. Angelo J. Gagliardo, disciplinary counsel, and Mr. Mark H. Aultman, urging disbarment for amicus curiae, Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Respondent did not deny his involvement in the theft of over three quarters of a million dollars worth of utility services for his corporation. Such criminal activity cannot be lightly regarded by this court in its attempt to maintain the high ethical standards which must be an integral part of the legal profession in Ohio. Therefore, this court is compelled to go a step further than the recommendation of the board and permanently disbar the respondent.
Respondent has violated three Disciplinary Rules which require an attorney to avoid involvement in illegal or deceitful conduct. It is impossible for this court to reach any other decision than the one reached today. It is imperative that the members of the Ohio Bar avoid any conduct which reflects adversely on their fitness to practice law. In this case, respondent steps far beyond the threshold of bad judgment or questionable practices which are often the subject matter of proceedings which produce a lesser sanction. Respondent was a party to felony offenses.
"DR 1-102 Misconduct.
"(A) A lawyer shall not:
"* * *
"(3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude.
"(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
"* * *
"(6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
This court finds respondent has violated disciplinary rule DR 1-102(A)(3), (4) and (6), and it is the judgment of this court that respondent be permanently disbarred.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.