The opinion
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.
Cleveland Bar Association v. Bosco.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Bosco (1993), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension with
final six months stayed and respondent placed on two-year
probation with conditions -- Conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation -- Use of respondent's
name in legal professional assocation's name while not
holding shares in the association.
(No. 93-1331 -- Submitted August 16, 1993 -- Decided
October 20, 1993.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-22.
In a complaint filed April 22, 1992, relator, Cleveland
Bar Association, charged respondent, John William Bosco of
Beachwood, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0005857, with three
counts of disciplinary infractions. In his answer, respondent
admitted the allegations in the first count of the complaint as
well as certain factual allegations in the second and third
counts. Thereafter, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") held a
hearing on February 22, 1993.
As to the first count, respondent's admissions and
evidence at the hearing established that respondent falsely
stated that he had paid to another attorney one-third of the
approximately $25,000 fee he earned as a receiver in the Rand
v. Ambassador Lanes case. In fact, respondent had retained the
entire fee and used the proceeds to pay his rent, child support
and other bills. Respondent made these false assertions to a
domestic relations court and in sworn testimony during a
creditor's examination in the course of his personal bankruptcy
in federal court. In a separation agreement, respondent had
earlier agreed to pay his wife, as part of a property division,
one-third of the net fee respondent received in connection with
the Rand case. Subsequently, respondent paid his former wife
the full amount to which he had agreed. The panel concluded
that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4)(conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and
1-102(A)(5)(conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice).
As to the third count, the panel found that respondent had
practiced law from 1982 to 1989 in a firm known as "Bernard,
Haffey & Bosco Co., L.P.A." Gov. Bar R. III(2)(A) states that
the name of a legal professional association shall consist,
inter alia, of the name of "one or more of the active
shareholders." Since respondent never held shares in this
legal professional association, the board found "a technical
violation" of DR 2-102 (professional notices, letterheads and
offices). However, the violation had ended prior to the
complaint's being filed.
As to the second count, the panel found that contrary to
his former wife's assertions, respondent had not improperly
threatened to withhold child support or her mortgage payments.
The panel also found respondent was a recovering alcoholic and
reformed gambler. Since 1983, respondent had been active with
Alcoholics Anonymous and, since 1987, he had been a member of
Gamblers Anonymous. However, the panel found insufficient
evidence to establish any mitigation.
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from
the practice of law in Ohio for one year. However, the panel
recommended that the final six months of that suspension be
stayed and respondent then be placed on probation for two
years. As conditions of probation, the panel recommended that
respondent actively participate in the Alcoholics Anonymous and
Gamblers Anonymous programs and that respondent be monitored
during the probationary period. The board adopted the
findings, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the panel,
and further recommended that costs be taxed to respondent.
Keith A. Ashmus, Steven S. Kaufman and Franklin J.
Hickman, for relator.
Charles Brown and Thomas G. Longo, for respondent.
Per Curiam. We agree with the board's findings and
recommendation. Accordingly, we suspend respondent from the
practice of law in Ohio for one year; however, the final six
months of that suspension are stayed for a period of two years,
and respondent is placed on probation for those two years upon
the conditions set forth in the board's report. Costs taxed to
respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and
Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
Moyer, C.J., not participating.