The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 84 Ohio St.3d 30.]
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. REISENFELD. (TWO CASES.)
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Reisenfeld, 1998-Ohio-307.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Improperly executing and
filing notarized affidavits in the Hamilton County Domestic Relations
Court—Six-month suspension with entire sanction suspended—
Improperly executing and filing notarized affidavits in the Hamilton
County Domestic Relations Court.
(Nos. 98-382 and 98-383—Submitted July 8, 1998—Decided November 18,
1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-66.
__________________
{¶ 1} On August 12, 1996, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging that respondents Sylvan P. Reisenfeld, Attorney Registration
No. 0003089, and Bradley A. Reisenfeld, Attorney Registration No. 0043879, both
of Cincinnati, Ohio, violated several Disciplinary Rules by improperly executing
and filing notarized affidavits in the Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court.
{¶ 2} The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”), which found that on six
occasions between 1991 and 1995, respondent Bradley Reisenfeld dictated an
affidavit in a client’s presence, and then had the client sign blank sheets of paper.
After the client left Bradley’s office, Bradley caused the affidavits based on his
dictation to be printed above the client’s signatures. Bradley then notarized the
signatures, filed the papers with the Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court,
and sent copies to the client. The panel found that on two other occasions in 1995,
respondent Sylvan Reisenfeld employed the same procedure. The respondents
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
testified that these were all urgent matters requiring prompt attention. None of the
clients obtained any advantage through filing these papers in this manner. None of
the clients, with the exception of Deborah Erdman, ever indicated that the language
in the affidavits was inaccurate or improper.
{¶ 3} Erdman claimed that she had a restraining order against her husband
and retained Bradley in October 1995 on the recommendation of a social service
worker. Erdman said that at the meeting with Bradley she thought he was taking
financial information to justify support payments. Because Bradley had to leave
the meeting and Erdman had to pick up her children from school, Bradley had
Erdman sign the lower right hand corner of some blank pieces of paper. Later,
Bradley completed several documents to be filed in domestic relations court on the
papers signed by Erdman. One of those documents was an affidavit that Erdman’s
husband had physically threatened her, a statement that Erdman said she had never
made to Bradley. Bradley claimed the affidavit was dictated in Erdman’s presence.
After this, Erdman discharged Bradley, and he returned the unearned portion of
Erdman’s fee.
{¶ 4} As soon as the investigation of Bradley began, the respondents
terminated the practice of taking signatures on blank paper and cooperated with the
relator. Sylvan disclosed the two similar affidavits that he had prepared.
{¶ 5} The panel concluded that respondents violated DR 1-102(A)(4)
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). In
view of the respondents’ cooperation in the investigation, their good reputation as
lawyers, and the fact that their improper notarizations occurred in only a few cases
over a long period of time, and all involved emergency situations, the panel
recommended that respondents receive a public reprimand. The board adopted the
findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________
2
January Term, 1998
Frederick O. Kiel, Gates T. Richards and Edwin W. Patterson III, General
Counsel, for relator.
John H. Burlew, for respondents.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} We adopt the findings and conclusion of the board. In determining a
sanction to be imposed, we consider the duty violated, the lawyer’s mental state,
the injury caused, and the existence of mitigating circumstances. Warren Cty. Bar
Assn. v. Bunce (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 112, 115, 689 N.E.2d 566, 568, and cases
cited therein.
{¶ 7} We have previously said that “lawyers must not take a cavalier
attitude toward their notary responsibilities.” Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Papcke
(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 91, 93, 689 N.E.2d 549, 551. Respondents did notarize
signatures that were inscribed in their presence, Sylvan did produce accurate
renditions of the statements made by the clients over these signatures, and although
Bradley failed to accurately reproduce Erdman’s statements, Erdman did not suffer
any damage. Nonetheless, respondents’ actions violated the duties imposed upon
notaries by R.C. Chapter 147.
{¶ 8} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187,
190, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240, and in later opinions, we said that “[w]hen an attorney
engages in a course of conduct resulting in a finding that the attorney has violated
DR 1-102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law
for an appropriate period of time.” See Disciplinary Counsel v. Simecek (1998), 83
Ohio St.3d 320, 699 N.E.2d 933. Respondents, however, took these improper
actions in only a few isolated cases that they believed presented emergency
situations, and their actions caused no damage to any client. Respondents’ actions
were but a few isolated incidents in otherwise unblemished legal careers, not a
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
course of conduct. Additionally, respondents cooperated with relator in its
investigation.
{¶ 9} We therefore adopt the recommendation of the board with respect to
respondent Sylvan Reisenfeld. Sylvan Reisenfeld is hereby publicly reprimanded.
But in light of the fact that Bradley Reisenfeld inaccurately added a statement – one
that Erdman allegedly never made – to Erdman’s affidavit, Bradley’s conduct
warrants a harsher sanction. Bradley Reisenfeld is hereby suspended from the
practice of law for six months, with the entire six months suspended. Costs are
taxed to respondents.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
__________________
DOUGLAS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 10} I concur with the majority with regard to the sanction imposed on
respondent Sylvan P. Reisenfeld. I dissent as to the sanction imposed on Bradley A.
Reisenfeld. I would impose a public reprimand.
__________________
4