Disciplinary Counsel v. Lawrence

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as

Disciplinary Counsel v. Lawrence, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-4605.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-4605

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LAWRENCE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it

may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lawrence, Slip Opinion No.

2016-Ohio-4605.]

Attorneys—Misconduct—Felony conviction for filing false tax returns—Engaging

in illegal conduct and in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or

misrepresentation—Two-year suspension with credit for time served under

interim felony suspension.

(No. 2015-1640—Submitted October 28, 2015—Decided June 30, 2016.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme

Court, No. 2015-048.

_______________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Meredith Lynn Lawrence of Warsaw, Kentucky,

Attorney Registration No. 0029098, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in

1977. On July 27, 2015, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Lawrence with

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

professional misconduct arising from his federal conviction on three counts of filing

false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1).

{¶ 2} In the complaint, relator alleged that after a two-week criminal trial in

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, a jury found

that Lawrence had knowingly underreported income from various businesses that

he owned in whole or in part for the 2004, 2005, and 2006 tax years. Some of the

unreported income came from businesses that were tangentially related to his

practice of law—including rental income that he received from other attorneys.

Lawrence was convicted in July 2012 of three counts of filing false tax returns in

violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) and sentenced to 27 months of incarceration on each

count to be served concurrently, followed by a one-year term of supervised release.

Lawrence was also ordered to pay a special assessment of $300 and restitution of

$128,253.26 plus interest, which he paid in full by December 17, 2012. Upon

notification of his felony conviction, we suspended his license on an interim basis

effective November 29, 2012. In re Lawrence, 133 Ohio St.3d 1496, 2012-Ohio-

5492, 978 N.E.2d 914.

{¶ 3} Lawrence’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Sixth

Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Lawrence, 557 Fed.Appx. 520 (6th

Cir.2014), and the Supreme Court of the United States denied his petition for a writ

of certiorari, Lawrence v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 223, 190 L.Ed.2d

133 (2014). Lawrence also moved the federal district court for a new trial in

December 2014, claiming that the certified public accountant he hired to file

amended tax returns for 2004, 2005, and 2006 determined that he had actually

overreported his income during those years. He appealed the court’s denial of that

motion to the Sixth Circuit.1 Lawrence was released from the custody of the

1

That appeal was still pending when the parties filed their consent-to-discipline agreement. The

Sixth Circuit, however, has since affirmed the district court’s order denying Lawrence’s motion for

2

January Term, 2016

Federal Bureau of Prisons on February 13, 2015, and began serving his one-year

term of supervised release.

{¶ 4} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct considered the cause on

the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement. See Gov.Bar R. V(16).

{¶ 5} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Lawrence stipulates to the

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

1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in illegal conduct involving moral

turpitude) and 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct

involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

{¶ 6} The parties stipulate that the mitigating factors include the absence of

a prior disciplinary record, Lawrence’s timely, good-faith effort to make restitution

or rectify the consequences of his misconduct, his cooperative attitude toward the

proceedings, evidence of his good character and reputation apart from the charged

misconduct, the imposition of other penalties, and the absence of harm to his

clients. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6). The parties agree that

just one aggravating factor is present—that Lawrence engaged in a pattern of

misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3). Based upon Lawrence’s stipulated

misconduct and the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, the parties

stipulate that the appropriate sanction for Lawrence’s misconduct is a two-year

suspension from the practice of law, with no portion of the suspension stayed. They

further agree that in light of the mitigating factors enumerated above, Lawrence

should receive credit for the time served under his interim felony suspension, which

commenced on November 29, 2012.

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

agreement conforms to Gov.Bar R. V(16) and recommend that we adopt the

agreement in its entirety. In support of this recommendation, the panel referred to

a new trial, United States v. Lawrence, 6th Cir. No. 15-5126 (Oct. 2, 2015), and has denied

Lawrence’s petition for en banc rehearing.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Disciplinary Counsel v. Jacobs, 140 Ohio St.3d 2, 2014-Ohio-2137, 14 N.E.3d 984.

In that case, Jacobs filed four false income-tax returns, but he pleaded guilty to a

federal information and was convicted of a single violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201(1).

He was sentenced to 12 months and one day in prison and paid a special assessment

and restitution promptly after sentencing. We suspended Jacobs from the practice

of law for two years, but we gave him credit for time served under his interim felony

suspension. Id. at ¶ 26.

{¶ 8} We agree that Lawrence violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and (4) and that his

misconduct warrants a two-year suspension. In light of the significant mitigating

factors present, we also agree that Lawrence should receive credit for the time

served under his interim felony suspension. Therefore, we adopt the parties’

consent-to-discipline agreement.

{¶ 9} Accordingly, Meredith Lynn Lawrence is hereby suspended from the

practice of law for a period of two years with credit for the time served under the

interim suspension that began on November 29, 2012. Costs are taxed to Lawrence.

Judgment accordingly.

PFEIFER, LANZINGER, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL and KENNEDY, JJ., dissent and would

remand the cause to the Board of Professional Conduct to reconsider the grant of

credit for time served under interim suspension.

_________________

Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond, Assistant

Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Helmer, Martins, Rice & Popham Co., L.P.A., and James B. Helmer Jr., for

respondent.

_________________

4