The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 89 Ohio St.3d 470.]
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. GONZALEZ.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. STAFFORD.
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Gonzalez, 2000-Ohio-221.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—While appearing in a
professional capacity, engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct
that is degrading to a tribunal.
(Nos. 00-412 and 00-413—Submitted April 26, 2000—Decided August 16, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-61.
__________________
{¶ 1} On April 2, 1999, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed an
amended complaint charging respondents Vincent Gonzalez, Attorney Registration
No. 0008558, and Vincent Stafford, Attorney Registration No. 0059846, both of
Cleveland, Ohio, with several violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondents answered, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”).
{¶ 2} The board found that in January 1998, respondents appeared in the
chambers of Magistrate Barbara Porzio for the purpose of negotiations before
resuming trial on a domestic relations visitation schedule. During a heated
discussion, respondent Gonzalez called respondent Stafford “a piece of shit,” and
Stafford responded by calling Gonzalez “a total asshole.” These remarks and the
demeanor of the respondents caused the magistrate to call for a court deputy. The
respondents left the magistrate’s chambers and walked into the courtroom, where
they stood chest to chest and continued to shout at each other.
{¶ 3} The panel concluded that by their conduct respondents violated DR
7-106(C)(6) (in appearing in a professional capacity, a lawyer shall not engage in
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
undignified or discourteous conduct which is degrading to a tribunal) and
recommended that each respondent be publicly reprimanded. The board adopted
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the panel.
__________________
Howard A. Shulman and Lester S. Potash, for relator.
Wesley A. Dumas, for respondent Gonzalez.
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent Stafford.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 4} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
board. Respondent Gonzalez and respondent Stafford are hereby publicly
reprimanded. Costs of these proceedings are taxed equally to each respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
2