The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 92 Ohio St.3d 404.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. KEITH.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Keith, 2001-Ohio-194.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Permanent disbarment—Conviction on five
counts of arson and one count of grand theft.
(No. 00-2250—Submitted February 7, 2001—Decided July 18, 2001.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-65.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} After respondent, Jeffrey Carl Keith, then of Parma, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0007885, was convicted on six felony counts, we suspended him,
effective July 13, 1995, indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio pursuant to
Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(3). In re Keith (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 1555, 651 N.E.2d 1013.
On August 7, 1995, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint
charging that respondent’s convictions showed that he violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a
lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4)
(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in any activity that
adversely reflects upon the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). Respondent answered,
and requested that the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of
the Supreme Court (“board”) stay disciplinary proceedings until his appeal of these
convictions was decided. The board granted the stay on December 1, 1995.
{¶ 2} After the Supreme Court of Florida disbarred respondent in Florida,
we suspended respondent from the practice of law in Ohio on November 24, 1998,
pursuant to the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4).
Disciplinary Counsel v. Keith (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1216, 703 N.E.2d 317. On
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
relator’s motion we later dismissed that order of suspension and declared that the
order of July 13, 1995 remained in full force and effect. Disciplinary Counsel v.
Keith (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 1414, 706 N.E.2d 1275, (the date reflected in that entry,
July 31, 1995 is incorrect).
{¶ 3} On August 30, 1999, the board dissolved the stay of the disciplinary
action and directed that it proceed. A panel of the board heard the matter on
November 22, 2000. The panel found that respondent was convicted on five counts
of arson and one count of grand theft. Respondent was fined $5,000 and sentenced
to five, two-year terms in prison on five of the charges and fined $7,500 and
sentenced to five to fifteen years in prison on the sixth charge. He was also ordered
to reimburse the Cleveland Fire Department $33,000. The panel concluded that
these convictions constituted violations of the Disciplinary Rules as charged. In
mitigation the panel noted that respondent had no prior disciplinary complaints filed
against him and that he cooperated with relator’s investigation. In addition, the
panel stated that because some witnesses in his felony trial had recanted their
testimony, respondent’s convictions might possibly be set aside at a future date.
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation
of the panel.
{¶ 4} In considering this matter we not only reviewed the record before the
panel and the board, but also took judicial notice of State of Ohio v. Keith (1997),
1997 WL 113755 (Ohio App. Dist.8). In that case, when the Eighth District Court
of Appeals affirmed respondent’s conviction on five counts of arson and one count
of grand theft, it recited the facts that supported the trial court’s decision. It noted
that over a two year period beginning in 1992, by setting afire and slashing tires,
respondent destroyed or damaged various automobiles of friends of Ms. Jennie
Baker, a woman who left him after a two year abusive relationship that began in
1990. Moreover, said the appellate court, in and after 1992 respondent both stalked
2
January Term, 2001
Baker, and subjected her to physical and psychological abuse including beating her
numerous times, threatening to douse her with gasoline and set her on fire, and
distributing leaflets to her neighbors claiming that she was a drug user.
{¶ 5} We therefore adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, but
believe that respondent should receive a more severe sanction than an indefinite
suspension. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law
in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Jeffrey Carl Keith, pro se.
__________________
3