The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 308.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. CHRIST.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Christ, 1996-Ohio-72.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Accepting private
employment in a matter upon the merits of which the attorney has acted in
a judicial capacity.
(No. 95-1670—Submitted September 27, 1995—Decided January 17, 1996.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-07.
__________________
{¶ 1} In a complaint filed on February 6, 1995, relator, Office of
Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent, Paul Steve Christ of Mansfield, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0008150, with having violated, inter alia, DR 9-101(A)
(accepting private employment in a matter upon the merits of which he has acted
in a judicial capacity). A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court heard the matter on June 8, 1995.
{¶ 2} The parties stipulated to the facts underlying the charged misconduct
at the hearing. The stipulations established that respondent granted an uncontested
divorce to Valarie Daniel and her former husband in April 1987, while respondent
was employed as a judge of the Richland County Common Pleas Court Division of
Domestic Relations. In June 1994, respondent represented Daniel in the course of
his private practice and filed a Motion to Modify Parental Rights and
Responsibilities against her former husband in the Richland County Common Pleas
Court, Division of Domestic Relations. Counsel for Daniel’s former husband
moved the court for respondent’s removal, but her motion was overruled, and
respondent continued as Daniel’s attorney until the parties resolved the custody and
child support dispute in January 1995.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 3} Respondent explained at the hearing that his judicial involvement in
the Daniels’ uncontested divorce had been limited to signing the final judgment
entry and that he had considered this act perfunctory and insufficient to bar his
subsequent private employment in the matter. However, the panel concluded that
respondent had committed a “technical” violation of DR 9-101(A) because he “did
act in his official capacity as a judge, [he] signed the entry, and * * * seven years
later [he] represented one of the litigants in a * * * Motion to Modify custody in
the same case ***.”
{¶ 4} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel considered
the testimony of two local attorneys who had known respondent for years and had
great respect for his professional competence and integrity. The panel also
considered that respondent had never before been the subject of disciplinary
proceedings. The panel recommended the sanction suggested by relator—a public
reprimand.
{¶ 5} The board adopted the panel’s report, including its findings of fact,
conclusions of law and recommended sanction.
__________________
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Mary L. Cibella, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} Upon review of the record, we concur in the board’s finding of
misconduct and its recommendation. Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded
for having violated DR 9-101(A). Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
2
January Term, 1996
__________________
3