The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 80 Ohio St.3d 605.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MASSEY.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Massey, 1998-Ohio-510.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension—Engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Engaging in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice—Attempting to
structure a transaction to evade the requirement of filing an IRS Form
8300.
(No. 97-1744—Submitted October 7, 1997—Decided January 7, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-76.
__________________
{¶ 1} Relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint on October
15, 1996, charging that respondent, Jefferson H. Massey of Zanesville, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0012374, violated several Disciplinary Rules when he
made arrangements for the payment of legal fees arising out of his defense of
Dwight Taylor on criminal charges. After respondent filed his answer, the matter
was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court (“board”).
{¶ 2} The panel found that while defending Taylor on charges of aggravated
trafficking in cocaine, respondent wrote a letter to him that stated in part:
“As I have advised you a few times, I have intentionally delayed on
collecting any attorney fees from you because I was not certain what assets the
government might attempt to seize. Any cash paid to me amounting to over
$10,000.00 has to be reported by me to the federal government. This would
probably trigger an investigation of you by the IRS on all earning [sic] you may
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
have earned by drug sales on which you failed to pay income taxes. This could cost
you several years in federal prison. Obviously, we need to avoid these problems.
“* * *
“However, because I have already spent over 125 hours on your case with
more to be spent and because we need to resolve the attorney fees before the
conclusion of your case, you and I need to figure out how you are to pay the legal
fees at this time.
“Being fair to you and me, I feel that a fair figure on the attorney fees is
$30,000.00. This is several thousand less than many other attorneys would have
charged you and I have done a better job than other attorneys would have done.
“As for how this gets paid, I would suggest that you pay the sum of
$9,900.00 in cash or by check as you desire.
“If you can deposit some finds [sic] in your mother’s account and pay part
of it by a check from your mother, this would be a fairly safe way.”
{¶ 3} Based upon this letter, the stipulations of the parties, and respondent’s
testimony both at the hearing and in a deposition, the panel found by clear and
convincing evidence that respondent was attempting to evade the requirements of
Section 6050I, Title 26, U.S.Code. That section provides: “Any person — (1) who
is engaged in a trade or business, and (2) who, in the course of such trade or
business, receives more than $10,000 in cash in 1 transaction (or 2 or more related
transactions), shall * * * [file an IRS Form 8300].” The regulations which
implement this section of the Internal Revenue Code make it clear that it applies to
attorneys who are paid in cash. Section 1.6050I-1(c)(7)(iii) (Example [2]), Title
26, C.F.R. We note that Section 6050I(f)(1), Title 26, U.S.Code provides, “No
person shall for the purpose of evading the return requirements of this section — *
* * (C) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure * * * any transaction
with one or more trades or businesses.”
2
January Term, 1998
{¶ 4} The panel concluded that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a
lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice). The panel recommended that
respondent receive a public reprimand.
{¶ 5} The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the panel.
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Jefferson H. Massey, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} We adopt the findings and of the board, but not its recommendation.
The provisions of Section 6050I, Title 26, U.S.Code are designed to provide the
government with information to identify unreported income. United States v.
Wilson (C.A.7, 1993), 985 F.2d 348, 350. Under federal law, respondent had a duty
to refrain from attempting to structure a transaction to evade the requirement of
filing IRS Form 8300.
{¶ 7} An attorney is obliged to provide the information in the form unless
the attorney can show that compliance would compromise confidential attorney-
client communication. United States v. Blackman (C.A.9, 1995), 72 F.3d 1418.
Respondent made no such claim.
{¶ 8} A public reprimand is appropriate when a lawyer negligently engages
in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession and causes potential
injury to the legal system. However, the board found by clear and convincing
evidence in this case that respondent engaged in a knowing attempt to evade federal
tax reporting laws. His actions were not the result of mere negligence. We
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
therefore suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months. Costs taxed
to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
4