The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 93 Ohio St.3d 402.]
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. THOMAS.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Thomas, 2001-Ohio-1344.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Engaging in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
(No. 01-799—Submitted June 20, 2001—Decided September 19, 2001.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-64.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} On August 14, 2000, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging respondent, Leslie F. Thomas of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0064995, with violating the Code of Professional Responsibility
when representing Carolyn Thomason. Respondent answered, and the matter was
referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of
the Supreme Court (“board”).
{¶ 2} Based on stipulations and testimony at a hearing on January 19, 2001,
the panel found that Carolyn Thomason retained respondent to represent her in a
divorce proceeding. On July 28, 1999, she visited respondent’s office and reviewed
and signed numerous documents to be filed the next day. When respondent
prepared to take the papers to court, she realized that her client had not signed one
of the documents to be filed, an affidavit in support of a motion for a restraining
order. Because Thomason wanted the divorce action and particularly the motion
for a restraining order filed as soon as possible, respondent called Thomason where
she worked and obtained verbal permission to sign her name. Respondent then
signed Thomason’s name to the affidavit but did not indicate thereon that the
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
signature was made with telephone permission. Respondent thereafter notarized
her rendition of Thomason’s signature, stating in the notary subscription that
Thomason had personally appeared before her and verified the facts, which was
true, and “affixed her signature,” which was not true. Respondent filed the
documents later the same day.
{¶ 3} On Friday, July 30, 1999, the judge of the common pleas domestic
relations court issued a temporary restraining order against Thomason’s spouse
based on the affidavit. Erroneously interpreting the restraining order, which
enjoined only disposing of or encumbering property, the police required
Thomason’s husband to leave the marital home.
{¶ 4} On Monday, August 2, 1999, four days after the affidavit was filed,
the spouse’s counsel, noticing a discrepancy between the signature on this affidavit
and signatures on the other documents, brought this discrepancy to the attention of
respondent. At opposing counsel’s suggestion, respondent filed a properly signed
and notarized amended affidavit the next day, with exactly the same information as
the first affidavit, without withdrawing the first affidavit or notifying the court that
it was improperly notarized.
{¶ 5} The judge, observing the amended affidavit, which duplicated an
existing affidavit, asked respondent why she had filed it. At a meeting with
opposing counsel in the judge’s office on August 6, 1999, respondent explained the
situation.
{¶ 6} The panel concluded that respondent’s acts 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 noted in mitigation that
respondent had not previously been disciplined for violating the rules of
professional conduct, that she took prompt steps to remedy the situation, and that
no party was harmed by her actions. The panel recommended that respondent
2
January Term, 2001
receive a public reprimand. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the panel.
{¶ 7} We have reviewed the record in this case and adopt the findings,
conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby publicly
reprimanded. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
Julie Bissinger and Deborah DeLong, for relator.
John H. Burlew, for respondent.
__________________
3