The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 78 Ohio St.3d 312.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TAYLOR.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Taylor, 1997-Ohio-211.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension—Perpetrating a fraud on a
municipal court during representation of a client.
(No. 96-2479—Submitted January 22, 1997—Decided April 30, 1997.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-79.
__________________
{¶ 1} On December 5, 1994, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint charging respondent, Charles Edison Taylor of Westerville, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0029131, in two counts with violations of several
Disciplinary Rules. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) heard the matter and found the following
with respect to Count One of the complaint.
{¶ 2} In 1992, respondent represented Robert O’Ryan, who had been
arrested on February 3, 1992 on several traffic charges, including operating a motor
vehicle while intoxicated (“OMVI”). The OMVI case was docketed as “State of
Ohio v. Robert O’Ryan,” case No. 105149, and assigned to Judge Martin in the
Franklin County Municipal Court. Respondent entered a plea of not guilty for
Robert O’Ryan and demanded a jury trial giving Richmond, Virginia, as Robert
O’Ryan’s home address.
{¶ 3} At the time of his OMVI arrest, Robert O’Ryan possessed a Virginia
driver’s license indicating that he was Thomas O’Ryan, which was the name of his
brother who lived in Columbus, Ohio, at a location where Robert O’Ryan
occasionally resided. Because he produced a license in a name other than his own,
the police, on February 11, 1992, charged Robert O’Ryan with providing false
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
information. The case was designated “State of Ohio v. Robert O’Ryan,” case No.
003761, and assigned to Judge Ferrell in the Franklin County Municipal Court. On
September 8, 1992, respondent filed a plea of not guilty and a jury demand in this
case, and this plea and demand were signed by Robert O’Ryan as defendant with a
Columbus, Ohio address.
{¶ 4} During March and April 1992, Mary O’Ryan, sister of Robert and
Thomas, told respondent that there was a Thomas O’Ryan and that Robert O’Ryan
was using his identity.
{¶ 5} On May 8, 1992, Robert O’Ryan was arrested on prohibited backing
and hit-skip violations. These cases were designated “State of Ohio v. Thomas
O’Ryan,” case Nos. 120701-1 and 120701-2, and assigned to Judge Romanoff in
the Franklin County Municipal Court. Respondent filed a plea of not guilty and a
jury demand. Robert O’Ryan signed the plea and jury demand as “Thomas O’Ryan”
with a Columbus, Ohio address.
{¶ 6} On August 22, 1992, Robert O’Ryan was arrested again on an OMVI
charge. The case was docketed as “State of Ohio v. Thomas O’Ryan,” case No.
138364, and assigned to Judge Hayes in the Franklin County Municipal Court. On
September 8, 1992, respondent filed in that case a plea of not guilty and a jury
demand. Respondent wrote the caption on that plea and demand as “State of Ohio
v. Robert,” and the document was signed by Robert O’Ryan, with a Columbus,
Ohio address.
{¶ 7} The panel noted the following rebuttal by respondent with respect to
Count One. Respondent claimed that at the arraignment before Judge Hayes in case
No. 138364 on September 8, 1992, he informed the judge that the proper first name
of the defendant was Robert, not Thomas. Respondent claimed that at a pretrial on
the false information case before Judge Ferrell, he informed the court that that there
were four cases that had to be consolidated because the same person was involved.
Respondent asserted that although he believed that he could win the hit-skip case
2
January Term, 1997
before Judge Romanoff on the merits, after the case was continued at least two
times, he entered a guilty plea in the name of “Thomas O’Ryan” to improper
“backing,” and the court imposed a fine. Respondent claims that he told Judge
Romanoff about the name discrepancy; however, the transcript indicates only that
the court said, “Mr. Taylor is here on Mr. Thomas O’Ryan * * *. Mr. O’Ryan will
be pleading guilty to prohibited backing or starting without safety; is that correct?”
and respondent replied, “That’s correct.”
{¶ 8} The panel further found that respondent filed a motion to consolidate
all of the three remaining cases which were pending before Judges Martin, Ferrell
and Hayes. The motion was granted on October 30, 1992, and all cases were
transferred to Judge Martin. Judge Martin then set a trial date for November 27,
1992. On that date, Robert O’Ryan was to appear before Judge Hayes, who had
been assigned to hear these cases; however, Robert O’Ryan failed to appear.
{¶ 9} With respect to Count One, the panel concluded that respondent had
violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice), 7-102(A)(1) (taking other action on behalf of his client
when he knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass
or maliciously injure another), and 7-102(B)(1) (A lawyer who receives
information clearly establishing that his client has, in the course of representation,
perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal shall promptly call upon his client to
rectify the same, and if his client refuses or is unable to do so, he shall reveal the
fraud to the affected person or tribunal.).
{¶ 10} With respect to Count Two, the panel found that that on October 11,
1994, respondent pled guilty and was convicted in federal court of failing to file a
tax return, a misdemeanor, was required to pay a special assessment of $50, and
was fined $5,000. As to Count Two, the panel concluded, with one member
dissenting, that respondent’s failure to file a federal tax return violated DR 1-
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon an attorney’s fitness to
practice law).
{¶ 11} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one year with six months of the suspension stayed.
{¶ 12} The board adopted the findings of the panel, but dismissed Count
Two. Based on the fraud perpetrated on the municipal court by respondent’s course
of conduct detailed in the findings in Count One, the board recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
__________________
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
James M. McCord, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 13} On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice
of law for one year. Cost are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ.,
concur.
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., not participating.
__________________
4