Summary
In Dayton Bar Assn. v. Callahan (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 179, 522 N.E.2d 542, the respondent, a convicted felon who had been incarcerated in a federal penitentiary, was suspended for only a year.
Summary of this case from Disciplinary Counsel v. BellOpinion
D.D. No. 87-19
Decided April 27, 1988.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Conviction of felony — Violations of Sections 1001 and 1002, Title 18, U.S. Code.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
On March 12, 1987, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a complaint charging that respondent, J. Gerard Callahan, Jr., had been convicted of a felony and had thereby violated DR 1-102, "DR 7-102(3) [ sic, 7-102(A)(3)]" (concealing or failing to disclose that which one is required by law to reveal), and "DR 7-102(8) [ sic, 7-102(A)(8)]" (engaging in illegal conduct). On May 13, 1987, respondent answered the complaint by admitting that he had been convicted of a felony. On July 30, 1987, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar. Respondent and relator submitted stipulations as to the facts that led to respondent's conviction.
DR 1-102 provides:
"(A) A lawyer shall not:
"(1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule.
"(2) Circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another.
"(3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude.
"(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
"(5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
"(6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
The record reflects that respondent was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1966. He began his legal career in Vietnam by serving as an advisor with the United States Department of State for two years. Thereafter, he attended the University of Paris and, in 1970, graduated with the equivalent of a master of laws degree in international law.
Respondent eventually returned to the United States and settled in Dayton where he started a general law practice. Respondent soon began representing clients in immigration-related matters. By 1985, approximately eighty-five percent of his practice involved representing immigrants.
On August 29, 1986, respondent was charged in federal district court in Dayton with completing United States Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") forms for Qwok On Hu and Helene Anderson Hu, a couple who he knew or should have known were married for the purpose of affecting Mr. Hu's immigrant status, in violation of Sections 1001 and 1002, Title 18, U.S. Code. Respondent pleaded guilty to those offenses. He was fined $5,000 and sentenced to two and one-half years' incarceration.
Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V(9)(a) (iii), respondent was suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio on March 18, 1987. He was incarcerated in a federal penitentiary from April 1, 1987 until July 1, 1987, after which he was released pursuant to an order sustaining a motion for sentence reduction. The order required him to pay the $5,000 fine, submit to a four-and-one-half-year probationary period, and contribute one thousand hours of community service.
The board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102, 7-102(A)(3), and 7-102(A)(8). Before making its recommendation, the board considered the circumstances which resulted in the federal charges, the character references and other mitigating testimony offered in respondent's behalf, and the stipulation that respondent had never before been the subject of criminal charges or disciplinary action. The board also considered respondent's testimony to the effect that he had made a mistake, regretted it, and would faithfully observe the Code of Professional Responsibility and the law in the future. The board thereafter recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year. The board further recommended that this sanction be imposed retroactively to March 18, 1987.
The charges against respondent were the result of an undercover operation in which federal agents Anderson and Hu represented their marriage to respondent by providing him with various documentary materials. Respondent attested that the information he supplied to the INS was accurate to the best of his knowledge. His previous contact with Hu, however, strongly suggested that the marriage was designed to avoid the immigration laws. Respondent admitted that he should have disclosed the true purpose of the marriage to the INS. Respondent also proposed that he may have been made the target of this investigation because of his active involvement in immigrant representation, although he did not believe that this possibility excused his conduct in any way.
Dennis A. Lieberman, for relator.
Louis Froelich and Gary L. Froelich, for respondent.
This court finds that respondent violated the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules indicated by the board. We also find the board's recommendation to be an appropriate sanction in this situation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year from March 18, 1987. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.