The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 88 Ohio St.3d 150.]
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. MAGANA.
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Magana, 2000-Ohio-284.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Engaging in illegal
conduct involving moral turpitude—Engaging in conduct adversely
reflecting on fitness to practice law—Advancing financial assistance to a
client—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice.
(No. 99-1558—Submitted October 12, 1999—Decided February 23, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-03.
__________________
{¶ 1} On February 17, 1998, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a
two-count complaint charging respondent, Gualberto Magana of Columbus, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0030703, with violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rules for the Government of the Bar. Respondent 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 panel found that from October 1994 through March 1996,
respondent represented Michelle Tincher-Khalil in a personal-injury matter. He
also represented Tincher-Khalil in a paternity case from November 1995 through
either May 1996, when respondent claims Tincher-Khalil discharged him, or
August 1996, when a decision in the case was rendered. In December 1995, during
the course of these representations, Tincher-Khalil moved into and lived in rental
property owned by respondent. Respondent did not charge Tincher-Khalil rent, but
in May 1996 respondent filed a complaint to evict her for nonpayment of rent.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Sometime after May 1996, and definitely during the period from July to September
1996, respondent had sexual encounters with Tincher-Khalil. Later, in December
1996, respondent prepared pleadings for Tincher-Khalil with which she could
initiate a divorce proceeding pro se. No evidence indicates that the documents were
ever filed.
{¶ 3} The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-
102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(6)
(engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law),
5-103(B) (advancing financial assistance to a client), and 1-102(A)(1) (violating a
Disciplinary Rule).
{¶ 4} The panel further found that on June 20, 1997, respondent pled guilty
in the United States District Court to a felony offense of illegally acquiring and
possessing United States Department of Agriculture food stamps. He was fined,
put on probation, and required to make restitution and perform two hundred hours
of community service. The panel further noted that on June 18, 1998, based upon
this conviction, we suspended respondent for an interim period. In re Magana
(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 1446, 695 N.E.2d 268.
{¶ 5} The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-
102(A)(1), 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6).
{¶ 6} The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended
from the practice of law with no credit for time served under the pending interim
suspension. The board adopted the findings of the panel. The board also concluded
that with respect to his representation of Tincher-Khalil, respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(6), and 5-103(B), and that with respect to the acts pertaining
to his felony conviction respondent violated 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-
102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6). The board adopted the recommendation of the panel.
2
January Term, 2000
__________________
Shawnell Williams, Stephen S. Francis and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator.
Ralph A. Kerns, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 7} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in
Ohio with no credit for time served under his pending interim suspension. Costs
are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
3