Disciplinary Counsel v. Pizzedaz

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.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Pizzedaz.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Pizzedaz (1994), Ohio

St.3d .]

Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment --

Conviction of five counts of theft in office and one count

of tampering with records.

(No. 93-2176 -- Submitted December 7, 1993 -- Decided

March 23, 1994.)

On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on

Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-47.

By complaint filed August 17, 1992, relator, Office of

Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent, Frederick E.

Pizzedaz, last known residence in Mentor, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0032796, with two counts of misconduct, each

involving violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct

involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and

1-102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney's

fitness to practice law). In his answer, respondent admitted

that in September 1991 he pled guilty to five counts of theft

in office, in violation of R.C. 2921.41, and one count of

tampering with records, in violation of R.C. 2913.42.1 The

matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on

Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") on May

14, 1993.

The events underlying respondent's felony convictions are

established by stipulations and his testimony before the

panel. From 1973 until April 1989, respondent served as the

executive director of the Northeast Ohio Area Coordinating

Agency ("NOACA"), which acquires funding for and coordinates

local government planning and development in that region. In

1983, respondent requested and was reimbursed by NOACA twice

for his travel on a single business trip -- once for an airline

ticket he never purchased and once for a rental car and

overnight accommodations. In 1985, he apparently altered a

hotel bill and was reimbursed by both the agency and the hotel

for certain charges incurred on a business trip. Also in 1985,

respondent accounted falsely for a business expense and was

reimbursed by NOACA for an airline ticket that cost

significantly less than he had represented. In 1986, he

endorsed a NOACA check to purchase for himself the car

previously leased by the agency for his use. Finally, in 1988,

respondent again reported a false business expense and was

reimbursed for another airline ticket for more than the ticket

cost.

Respondent was sentenced to a prison term of three years

and ordered to pay over $12,000 in restitution. After serving

one hundred eighteen days of his sentence, respondent was

released on shock probation. He was then placed on five years'

probation and ordered to complete two thousand hours of

community service. Respondent has made restitution as ordered

and, as of the panel hearing, had completed approximately seven

hundred fifty hours of community service.

Based on this evidence, the panel found that respondent

had committed the misconduct charged by relator. The panel

recommended that respondent be suspended indefinitely from the

practice of law. The board adopted the panel's findings and

recommendation.

Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Alvin E,

Mathews, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Gold, Rotatori, Schwartz, & Gibbons Co., L.P.A., and John

S. Pyle, for respondent.

Per Curiam. We agree with the board's findings that

respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (4) and (6). However, we

reject the indefinite suspension the board recommended.

Respondent's misconduct manifests the public's worst fear about

lawyers. His crimes prove that he will take advantage of

public trust if given the opportunity. Thus, unlike the board

and panel, we are not impressed with respondent's admission of

guilt, remorse, full restitution, and efforts to comply with

the terms of his probation. Rather, we find respondent's

dishonesty deserving of the full measure of our disciplinary

authority. Respondent is therefore permanently disbarred from

the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and

Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Douglas and Wright, JJ., dissent.

FOOTNOTE

1 These felony convictions resulted in respondent's interim

suspension from the practice of law in Ohio pursuant to Gov.Bar

R. V(9)(a)(iii) (now Gov.Bar R. V[5][A][3]).

Douglas, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I

would follow the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners

on Grievances and Discipline and order that respondent be

indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Wright, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.