Opinion
D.D. No. 84-50
Decided April 24, 1985.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Mail fraud.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, relator herein, filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar ("board") charging Phil C. Collins, respondent herein, with violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) and (4) as well as DR 7-102(A)(5) and (6). These charges centered on alleged misconduct concerning respondent's conviction on seven counts of a scheme to defraud through use of the United States mails in violation of Section 1341, Title 18, U.S. Code. A hearing was conducted before a three-member panel of the board on September 26, 1984. The following facts were developed largely through the parties' exhibits and the transcript of the proceedings.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1962 and for some time practiced law in Cincinnati. Commencing about 1970 he became the owner and operator of several nursing homes located in the Cincinnati area. The nursing homes were entitled to payments for patient care from the Ohio Department of Public Welfare ("ODPW"). Respondent was indicted for using the United States mails to defraud by sending false and fraudulent claims to the state of Ohio, in that he overreported nursing home costs and received government reimbursement greater than he was entitled to under the existing ODPW system of cost reimbursement. He was tried and found guilty. He was fined $7,000 and sentenced to four months' confinement — which he claims was reduced to a $1,000 fine and two months' confinement. The conviction was later affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and six days later he was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V8(a) which provides for automatic indefinite suspension for attorneys convicted of an offense, other than a petty offense. Following respondent's conviction, the relator filed a complaint charging respondent with violation of the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules. Respondent answered by letter and denied that he was acting in representation of a client and requested reinstatement. Respondent also asserted that he may be entitled to post-conviction relief; however, his conviction has not been vacated.
The board found that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and (4) but did not violate DR 7-102(A)(5) and (6). The board further recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio. The board went on to note that respondent's request for reinstatement contained in his letter answer did not meet the requirements stated in Gov. Bar R. V(23) to (25) and could not be considered as being properly presented.
Angelo J. Gagliardo, disciplinary counsel, and Karen B. Hull, for relator.
Phil C. Collins, pro se.
No objections to the board's findings and recommendations were filed by the Disciplinary Counsel or respondent. Respondent's conduct, which resulted in a felony conviction, cannot be lightly regarded by this court in its quest to maintain high ethical standards for the members of Ohio's Bar. Upon a review of the record, we concur in the board's findings and recommendation that respondent be indefinitely suspended.
We also agree with the board's determination that respondent's request for reinstatement from his current automatic indefinite suspension does not comply with the requirements of Gov. Bar R. V(23) to (25).
This court finds that respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and (4). It is hereby the judgment of this court that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.