Summary
In Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Scuro, 36 Ohio St.3d 205, 522 N.E.2d 572 (1988), an attorney admitted in Ohio applied for admission to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, which required as a condition of admission that the lawyer pass a Federal bar examination of some kind.
Summary of this case from Attorney Grievance Commission v. PakOpinion
D.D. No. 87-24
Decided May 4, 1988.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension — Practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of that jurisdiction's professional regulations.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
On September 16, 1986, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint alleging two counts of misconduct against respondent, Joseph E. Scuro, Jr. Respondent answered the complaint on December 23, 1986. The parties waived a hearing in the matter and, on August 31, 1987, submitted stipulations as to the relevant facts, including that Count II had been withdrawn.
The record reflects that respondent is an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Ohio. On October 6, 1982, respondent applied for admission to the Bar of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, which required that he pass a bar examination. Respondent failed that federal bar examination twice during 1983 and, as a result, was not admitted to practice in that district. Despite not having been admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, respondent represented clients in over thirty cases before that court between 1982 and 1986. In doing so, respondent violated the Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the Texas Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Supreme Court of Texas Rules Governing the State Bar of Texas.
In June 1986, William S. Sessions, then Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, filed an order requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt for his unauthorized practice of law without admission to that federal bar. On July 31, 1986, Judge Sessions found respondent to be in civil contempt and ordered sanctions against him.
In addition to the foregoing facts, relator and respondent stipulated to a violation of DR 3-101(B) (practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction). The board therefore found respondent in violation of DR 3-101(B) and recommended that he be publicly reprimanded.
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Mark H. Aultman, for relator.
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
This court adopts the factual findings of the board. We conclude, however, that the findings support a more severe sanction than recommended. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months for having violated DR 3-101(B). Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.
H. BROWN, J., dissents.
Since the respondent was once disciplined in Texas for the conduct which is before us, I believe the sanction we should impose is a public reprimand as recommended by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.