Summary
ordering the permanent disbarment of an attorney who had been convicted of obstruction of justice for taking part in a scheme to circumvent the random assignment of cases to judges and for paying bribes to the court's bond commissioner
Summary of this case from Disciplinary Counsel v. PhillipsOpinion
No. 91-860
Submitted September 11, 1991 —
Decided December 11, 1991.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 90-47.
Relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed an amended complaint on February 4, 1991, charging respondent, Bruce Alan Melamed, with multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The parties filed stipulations and waived a hearing. The case was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on the stipulations, which disclose the following facts:
From 1978 to 1986, Melamed took part in a "case steering" scheme to circumvent the random assignment of cases to judges in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Melamed and another attorney, Frederick K. Jurek, paid bribes to the court's bond commissioner, Raymond F. McCool. In return, McCool made sure that judges picked by Melamed and Jurek were assigned to criminal cases brought against Melamed's and Jurek's clients.
Jurek and McCool were ultimately convicted of bribery. See State v. Jurek (1989), 52 Ohio App.3d 30, 556 N.E.2d 1191, and State v. McCool (1988), 46 Ohio App.3d 1, 544 N.E.2d 933.
In 1986, Melamed took part in another bribery scheme. Melamed represented Latricia Koltiska, the complaining witness in two criminal actions brought against Robert Frye. On May 23 and September 9, 1986, Melamed bribed Koltiska so that she would not testify in these actions; as a result, the actions were dismissed.
During its September 1986 term, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury secretly indicted Melamed. The four-count indictment included two counts of bribery, R.C. 2923.02, and one count of obstruction of justice, R.C. 2921.32, stemming from Melamed's payoffs to Koltiska.
On October 24, 1986, Cleveland police officers arrested Melamed. The officers advised him of the charges and played a tape recording evidencing his illegal acts. Seeking to extricate himself from the charges, Melamed met with representatives of the police and prosecutor. Melamed agreed to cooperate with the investigation and prosecution of the case-steering scheme. The prosecutor's representatives promised that Melamed's cooperation would be considered in any criminal proceedings against him.
From October 28, 1986 to February 19, 1987, Melamed acted as an under-cover informant, secretly taping various conversations as part of the investigation. But Melamed continued to accept new employment, even though, as an informant, he was an agent of parties adverse to his clients.
Melamed arrived at a plea bargain with the state. On April 8, 1988, Melamed pled guilty to obstruction of justice, a fourth-degree felony, whereupon the remaining three counts of the indictment were dismissed. Upon conviction, we indefinitely suspended Melamed pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V (9)(a)(iii). In re Melamed (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 716, 542 N.E.2d 1114.
Melamed has stipulated that his behavior violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice), 5-101(A) (accepting employment where judgment may be affected by attorney's own interests), and 7-109(C) (payment to witness contingent on content of testimony or outcome of case). Relator has stipulated that Melamed violated no Disciplinary Rule on disclosure of confidential or privileged information. The panel found accordingly.
The panel recommended that Melamed be indefinitely suspended without credit for time elapsed since his suspension under Gov.Bar R. V (9)(a)(iii). The board adopted the panel's findings, but rejected the proposed sanction. Instead, the board unanimously recommended Melamed's permanent disbarment. The board observed that Melamed cooperated with police only after he was caught. The board also noted the gravity of Melamed's crime and his disregard of his professional obligations to his clients.
J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harald F. Craig III, for relator.
Alan L. Melamed, for respondent.
We concur in the findings and recommendation of the board. Therefore, we order that Bruce Alan Melamed be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.