The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 89 Ohio St.3d 80.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. COOK.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cook, 2000-Ohio-447.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension with full credit for time served
under interim suspension—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice—Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on
fitness to practice law.
(No. 99-2264—Submitted February 9, 2000—Decided May 24, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-22.
__________________
{¶ 1} In December 1996, Montel L. Humphrey employed respondent, Gary
Cook of Shaker Heights, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0021240, to prepare
contracts to purchase a bar, a beauty supply store, and a home, and to incorporate
H.M. Company and T.M.T.L., Inc.
{¶ 2} Respondent was unaware that Humphrey obtained the money to
engage in these transactions from the distribution of illicit drugs.
{¶ 3} In May 1998, however, the United States attorney charged respondent
under Sections 1957(a) and 2, Title 18, U.S.Code, for engaging in monetary
transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity. (The specified
unlawful activity was conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance under Section
846, Title 21 U.S.Code.)
{¶ 4} Respondent entered into a plea agreement in which he admitted that
he “assisted Humphrey in the [attempt] to obtain financing for the residence [and]
* * * that he acted with reckless disregard for the truth as to the source of
Humphrey’s monies with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth about the
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
source of the funds to be used by Humphrey in the unlawful transaction to purchase
the residence.”
{¶ 5} Respondent was sentenced to three years of probation, six months’
home confinement, one hundred and fifty hours of community service, and ordered
to pay a fine of $2,000. In February 1999, based on the felony conviction, he was
suspended from the practice of law for an interim period pursuant to Gov.Bar R.
V(5)(A)(4). In re Cook (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 1498, 705 N.E.2d 1240.
{¶ 6} On April 12, 1999, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint charging that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer
shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) and
1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the
lawyer’s fitness to practice law). Respondent answered, and a panel of the Board
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”)
heard the matter on stipulated facts. The panel found the facts as stipulated and
concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6). The
panel noted that respondent had no intent to commit a crime, had cooperated with
the district attorney in the prosecution of Humphrey, had already completed the six
months of home confinement and community service, and had paid the fine
imposed by the United States District Court. The panel recommended that
respondent receive a six-month suspension with credit for time served, that the
interim suspension be terminated immediately, and that respondent be reinstated to
the practice of law.
{¶ 7} The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the panel. It recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
for six months, with full credit for the time respondent served under the interim
suspension. The board further recommended that respondent’s suspension be
terminated immediately and that he be reinstated to the practice of law.
__________________
2
January Term, 2000
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Mary L. Cibella, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 8} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six months.
Respondent shall receive full credit for time served under the interim suspension;
therefore, the interim suspension is immediately terminated and respondent is
reinstated to the practice of law. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
3