# Disciplinary Counsel v. Petroff

> Ohio Supreme Court · April 28, 1999 · 85 Ohio St. 3d 396

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151618

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 28, 1999
- **Citations:** 85 Ohio St. 3d 396; 1999 Ohio 400
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 4 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/11151618

## Opinion text

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 85 Ohio St.3d 396.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. PETROFF.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Petroff, 1999-Ohio-400.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension with full credit for time
served—Conviction of attempting to evade federal income taxes.
(No. 98-2641—Submitted January 27, 1999—Decided April 28, 1999.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-32.
__________________
{¶ 1} On September 30, 1997, respondent, Mark Gregory Petroff of Elyria,
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0019634, pled guilty to a charge of attempting to
evade federal income taxes in violation of Section 7201 et seq., Title 26, U.S.Code.
Respondent was sentenced to four months of home detention, placed on two years
of probation, and ordered to pay restitution. On March 19, 1998, we imposed on
respondent an interim suspension from the practice of law. In re Petroff (1998), 81
Ohio St.3d 1484, 691 N.E.2d 685.
{¶ 2} On June 8, 1998, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint charging that respondent’s conduct violated several Disciplinary Rules.
After respondent answered, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts and a
further stipulation that the conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct
involving moral turpitude), (4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation), and (6) (conduct adversely reflecting upon the attorney’s ability
to practice law). The parties also stipulated that respondent cooperated fully with
relator’s investigation; that none of his conduct had any impact on his clients and
did not arise from the representation of his clients; and that accepting full
responsibility, respondent had expressed remorse both in the disciplinary
proceeding and before the United States District Court.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 3} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court (“board”) considered the matter. The panel found the facts
as stipulated and agreed that respondent had violated the three Disciplinary Rules.
The panel received testimonial letters regarding respondent’s legal ability and
professionalism and recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for one year, with full credit given for the time already served under our
previous interim suspension of March 19, 1998. The board adopted the findings,
conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna M. Anelli,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Richard S. Koblentz and Peter A. Russell, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 4} We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. Dayton Bar Assn.
v. Bart (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 538, 687 N.E.2d 681, and Dayton Bar Assn. v. Seall
(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 280, 690 N.E.2d 1271, were cases involving facts similar to
these. In those cases we imposed a one-year suspension with full credit for time
served under the interim suspension. We adopt the board’s recommendation that
we impose the same sanction in this case. Respondent is hereby suspended from
the practice of law for one year with full credit for time served. Cost are 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/11151618. Public record. Not legal advice.