From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Tzagournis

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 11, 1976
348 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio 1976)

Opinion

D.D. No. 76-3

Decided June 11, 1976.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Acts warranting.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

On January 16, 1974, an information was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, charging respondent, George A. Tzagournis, with three counts of "wilfully and knowingly" failing to make federal income tax returns for the calendar years 1968, 1969, and 1970. It was alleged that respondent had a gross income for the year 1968 of $23,157.07, for the year 1969 of $19,691.69, and for the year 1970 of $24,235.07, and that by failing to make income tax returns accordingly, respondent was in violation of Section 7203, Title 26, United States Code. On January 24, 1974, respondent was arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty to all three counts, and was released on personal bond. Following a number of defense motions and orders of that court, respondent, on September 16, 1974, appeared in open court, represented by counsel, as he was throughout the proceedings, and entered a plea of nolo contendere to the third count of said information. A hearing on the plea was had with the assistant United States attorney setting forth in detail evidence in support of the charge. The court found the respondent guilty as charged in the third count and sentenced him to pay a fine of $2,500. Counts one and two were dismissed on motion of the assistant United States attorney.

At the disciplinary proceedings instituted by the relator — the complaint alleging that due to the conviction respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6), and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — respondent admitted the conviction but denied any violation of the disciplinary rules or that he was guilty of misconduct. Respondent stated further that the Grievance Committee of the Mahoning County Bar Association had conducted an investigation and unanimously found no misconduct.

The proceedings were conducted in private, and, with the exception of the letter from the Chairman of the Grievance Committee of the Mahoning County Bar Association, respondent offered no evidence. The hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found that respondent was adjudged guilty of violating Section 7203, Title 26, U.S. Code, and that by reason of the aforesaid finding had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Mr. John R. Welch, Mr. Albert L. Bell, Mr. Joseph G. Miller and Mr. John J. Moffett, for relator.

Mr. Eugene B. Fox, for respondent.


Beginning in 1972, with the case of Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein, 29 Ohio St.2d 77, this court has strictly imposed the indefinite suspension of a respondent's right to practice law in Ohio in cases of this nature where there has been a conviction for willfully and knowingly failing to make a federal income tax return. From the record it would appear that this is not a case on which to distinguish that result.

For a list of such cases see Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Vaporis (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 364.

For the foregoing reason, the report of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline is confirmed, and respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STEPHENSON, CELEBREZZE and W. BROWN, JJ., concur.

STEPHENSON, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting for STERN, J.


Summaries of

Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Tzagournis

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 11, 1976
348 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio 1976)
Case details for

Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Tzagournis

Case Details

Full title:OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. TZAGOURNIS

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jun 11, 1976

Citations

348 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio 1976)
348 N.E.2d 690

Citing Cases

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Pandilidis

It is our conclusion that the facts herein are not distinguishable from those in Stein and subsequent cases.…