# Dayton Bar Assn. v. Seall

> Ohio Supreme Court · March 25, 1998 · 81 Ohio St. 3d 280

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151181

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 25, 1998
- **Citations:** 81 Ohio St. 3d 280; 1998 Ohio 630
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151181

## Opinion text

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 81 Ohio St.3d 280.]

DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. SEALL.
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Seall, 1998-Ohio-630.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension with credit for time served
under interim suspension—Conviction of conspiracy to commit tax
fraud—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation.
(No. 97-2258—Submitted December 10, 1997—Decided March 25, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-37.
__________________
{¶ 1} On April 14, 1997, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a complaint
charging that respondent, William H. Seall of Centerville, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0018722, had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). Respondent had pled
guilty to and was convicted of conspiracy to commit tax fraud, a felony, in violation
of Section 371, Title 18, U.S.Code. He was sentenced to four months in prison,
followed by two years of supervised release. He was also required to pay a special
assessment of $50 and was fined $7,000. On December 19, 1996, we suspended
respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for an interim period. In re Seall
(1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1497, 673 N.E.2d 596.
{¶ 2} Respondent answered, admitting that he violated DR 1-102(A)(4),
and the parties filed an agreed stipulation of facts. A panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”)
heard the matter and received evidence in mitigation. Five character witnesses
attested to respondent’s trustworthiness and ability. The panel also received nine
letters from executives, educators, and attorneys indicating their trust and
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

confidence in respondent. In addition, an Assistant United States Attorney stated
that he had no objection to respondent being reinstated to the practice of law and
that respondent had cooperated one hundred percent with the government’s
investigation. The panel also received evidence of respondent’s deep involvement
in community activities and three letters from physicians concerning respondent’s
serious but controllable medical problems. The panel concluded that respondent
had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), and recommended that he be suspended from the
practice of law for one year with credit for time served during the interim
suspension. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the panel.
__________________
Patrick W. Allen, for relator.
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 3} Upon review of the record in this case, we adopt the findings,
conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended
from the practice of law for one year with full credit for time served under our
interim suspension of December 19, 1996. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151181. Public record. Not legal advice.