Columbus Bar Assn. v. Craig

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Craig, 131 Ohio St.3d 364, 2012-Ohio-1083.]

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. CRAIG.

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Craig, 131 Ohio St.3d 364, 2012-Ohio-1083.]

Attorney misconduct, including failing to keep client reasonably informed and

engaging in conduct involving dishonesty—Public reprimand.

(No. 2011-1721—Submitted November 16, 2011—Decided March 20, 2012.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-040.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Steve A. Craig of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0011244, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1976.

On April 11, 2011, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged Craig with

professional misconduct arising from his forging a client’s signature on an

affidavit of transfer on death, notarizing that signature, and then filing the

document with the Franklin County Recorder’s Office.

{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.

See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints

and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline

(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).

{¶ 3} In the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, Craig stipulates to

the facts as alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct violated

Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep his client reasonably informed

about the status of a matter), 4.1(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making

a false statement of material fact or law), and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from

engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

Relator has agreed to dismiss alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

lawyer to provide competent representation to a client) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a

lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to

practice law).

{¶ 4} The parties stipulated that no aggravating factors exist and that

mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a

selfish motive, a timely good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of the

misconduct, full and free disclosure and a cooperative attitude toward the

disciplinary proceedings, and Craig’s good character and reputation aside from

the charged misconduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).

Based upon these substantial mitigating factors, the parties have stipulated that a

public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for Craig’s misconduct.

{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline

agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11, and they recommend that we adopt

the agreement in its entirety. We agree that Craig violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3),

4.1(a), and 8.4(c) and that, consistent with the parties’ agreement, this conduct

warrants a public reprimand. Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-

discipline agreement.

{¶ 6} Accordingly, Craig is hereby publicly reprimanded for his

violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), 4.1(a), and 8.4(c). Costs are taxed to Craig.

Judgment accordingly.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.

__________________

Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar

Counsel; and Robert D. Erney, for relator.

Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., and Christopher J. Weber, for

respondent.

______________________

2