Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Moore
143 Ohio St. 3d 252
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Respondent Rodger William Moore, admitted in Ohio in 2001, was charged by the Cincinnati Bar Association with multiple instances of shoplifting (one in 2001; six culminating in March 2012) and with making false statements during the disciplinary investigation.
- Moore admitted to the 2001 Atlanta incident (attempt to leave a Kroger with unpaid wine) and to scanning and using UPC codes he carried into a Cincinnati Kroger to underpay for expensive wine on multiple occasions in 2012; he pleaded guilty or entered diversion in those matters.
- Moore submitted a July 2012 letter and later sworn and written responses to the Bar that contained false or misleading statements and omissions about the prior thefts and the 2001 charge. He also delayed restitution to the Cincinnati Kroger until shortly before the disciplinary hearing.
- The parties stipulated to facts, misconduct, and many aggravating/mitigating factors and jointly recommended sanctions; a board panel adopted the stipulations and recommended a two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions. The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the board’s findings and sanction.
- The board found violations of former DR 1-102(A)(3) and (A)(4) and Rules of Professional Conduct 8.1(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) for dishonesty, illegal acts reflecting adversely on trustworthiness, deceit, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary process.
- The court weighed aggravating factors (dishonest motive; pattern and multiple offenses; failure to cooperate; false statements during the process; delayed restitution) and limited mitigating weight for character evidence because Moore had concealed misconduct even from close acquaintances and his treating psychologist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore committed ethical violations through the shoplifting incidents and false statements | Moore’s repeated shoplifting and false statements violated professional conduct rules and warrant discipline | Moore admitted conduct but sought mitigation via character evidence and treatment; parties largely stipulated conduct | Court found violations of DR 1-102(A)(3)/(A)(4), Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) as stipulated |
| Appropriate sanction for repeated thefts and dishonesty | Two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions (as stipulated) is appropriate given pattern, aggravators, and need for treatment | Agreed to stipulated sanction and conditions | Court adopted two-year suspension with second year stayed subject to OLAP compliance, counseling proof, no further misconduct, and rigorous reinstatement showing |
| Weight of mitigating evidence (character/testimony) | Character letters and testimony show rehabilitation potential and lack of prior discipline | Board noting inconsistent disclosures to friends and psychologist undermines weight of mitigation | Board/court gave only limited mitigating weight to character evidence due to concealment and unwillingness to accept responsibility |
| Reinstatement requirements and monitoring | Relator recommended conditions including OLAP, counseling reports, and independent medical evaluation before reinstatement | Moore agreed to recommended conditions as part of stipulation | Court required compliance with OLAP, periodic psychologist reports, no further misconduct, and independent medical documentation for reinstatement under Gov.Bar R. V(25) |
Key Cases Cited
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart, 84 Ohio St.3d 7, 701 N.E.2d 686 (1998) (two-year suspension with one year stayed where attorney shoplifted twice and showed need for psychiatric evaluation and rehabilitation)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Fidler, 83 Ohio St.3d 396, 700 N.E.2d 323 (1998) (18-month suspension with one year stayed where repeated thefts and dishonest statements occurred; probation and counseling ordered)