The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 72 Ohio St.3d 483.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FELMAN.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Felman, 1995-Ohio-231.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Conviction of conspiracy
to conceal assets and income of client—Late filing and payment of attorney
registration fees—Repeated failure to timely register as an inactive
attorney.
(No. 95-393—Submitted April 4, 1995—Decided July 12, 1995.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-61.
__________________
{¶ 1} In a complaint filed August 15, 1994, relator, Office of Disciplinary
Counsel, charged respondent, David Sherman Felman, last known address in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, Attorney Registration No. 0038302, with two counts of
professional misconduct. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances
and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") considered the matter on the parties'
"Agreed Stipulations, Recommendation for Sanctions, and Waiver of Hearing."
{¶ 2} With respect to Count I, the parties stipulated, in part, as follows:
"* * * Respondent * * * was admitted to the practice of law in the State of
Ohio on November 4, 1977.
"* * * On March 3, 1994, an Information was filed against Respondent in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern, Division,
in United States of America v. David S. Feldman and Howard J. Wright, Jr. [sic],
Case No. 1:94CR0074 charging him with one (1) count of conspiracy (a felony
offense), in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. The Information
charged that from on or about April 1983 to August 1989[,] Respondent engaged
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
in a conspiracy to conceal assets and income of his client, Howard J. Wichert, Jr.
[sic], who had earned monies from illegal gambling.
"* * * On March 31, 1994, Respondent entered a Plea Agreement whereby
he agreed to enter a plea of guilty to the charge of conspiracy, in violation of Title
18, United States Code, Section 371, in return for a promise that no additional
charges would be brought against him arising out of the incident.
"* * * On May 12, 1994, Respondent was sentenced to confinement for a
term of eighteen (18) months, supervised release for a term of two years, and a fine
of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). Respondent was committed to the
custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons and commenced service of his
imprisonment sentence on May 13, 1994."
{¶ 3} Respondent admitted that this conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3)
(illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving fraud,
deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely
reflects on fitness to practice law).
{¶ 4} With respect to Count II, the parties stipulated that respondent filed
his Certificate of Registration with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and paid his
fees late for four out of the last five biennial periods. He registered "inactive" for
the 1985-1987 biennium on April 20, 1988, nearly thirty-one months late.
Respondent continued to file as an inactive attorney for the 1987-1989, 1991-1993,
and 1993-1995 biennia; however, he did not file timely for any of these registration
periods. Respondent stipulated that this conduct violated the timely registration
requirements of "Gov.Bar R. VI(1) and (3) [sic, 2]."
{¶ 5} The parties jointly suggested that respondent receive an indefinite
suspension for his misconduct. After noting respondent's complete cooperation in
the disciplinary proceedings, the panel recommended imposition of an indefinite
suspension from the practice of law. The board agreed, adopting the panel's
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction.
2
January Term, 1995
__________________
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Stewart I. Mandel, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} We concur in the board's findings that respondent violated the cited
Discplinary Rules and with its recommendation. We, therefore, order that
respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed
to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
__________________
3