Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero
34 N.E.3d 60
Ohio2014Background
- Respondent Christopher T. Cicero, admitted 1988, faced a single-count disciplinary complaint alleging he obtained a blank signed municipal-court judgment entry, had his assistant fill in and file it to reduce a speeding ticket to a headlight violation, and falsely represented that a prosecutor had approved the reduction. The conduct occurred while a prior disciplinary matter was pending.
- Panel and Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) based on Cicero’s deceptive acts and false statements to the court and prosecutor’s office.
- Facts: Cicero sought a blank signed entry from Judge VanDerKarr, did not have prosecutor approval, had his assistant file the amended entry, and later repeatedly lied about receiving a prosecutorial offer; he refused to name the prosecutor when first asked, later implicated Brandon Shroy, and spent five days in jail for contempt before pleading no contest to the original speeding charge.
- Panel recommended indefinite suspension; the Board amended findings and recommended permanent disbarment, citing repeated disciplinary history, a pattern of dishonesty, misconduct while a prior case was pending, and perceived unfitness to practice.
- The Supreme Court sustained the misconduct findings but overruled the Board’s recommendation of permanent disbarment and instead imposed an indefinite suspension; costs taxed to Cicero.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cicero committed professional misconduct by making false statements and deceitful filings | Cicero fabricated a prosecutor’s approval, filed a falsified amended entry, and lied to the court and prosecutor’s office, violating multiple professional rules | Cicero did not dispute the board’s findings for purposes of his objection (he challenged only the sanction) | Court upheld panel/board findings of violations of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) |
| Appropriate sanction: permanent disbarment vs. indefinite suspension | Relator/Board: permanent disbarment necessary due to repeated dishonest conduct, pattern of deceit, and risk to public trust | Cicero: urged adoption of panel’s lesser recommendation of indefinite suspension; did not argue for a specific alternative beyond that | Court rejected permanent disbarment as excessive here and imposed an indefinite suspension |
| Weight of prior disciplinary history in sanctioning | Board: multiple prior disciplinary actions and misconduct while a prior case was pending justify the ultimate sanction | Cicero: prior sanctions did not involve dishonesty toward clients; argued permanent disbarment is unwarranted | Court considered prior history aggravating but distinguished this pattern from cases warranting disbarment and declined to disbar |
| Comparability to precedent supporting disbarment | Relator cited cases (e.g., Farrell) showing disbarment where pattern of lying/deceit demonstrated inability to conform behavior | Cicero pointed to cases where indefinite suspension was imposed for serious misconduct | Court compared precedents and concluded this case aligned more with Frost/Squeo/Boggs—indefinite suspension—rather than Farrell (disbarment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Frost, 122 Ohio St.3d 219 (2009) (indefinite suspension for pattern of dishonesty with mitigating considerations)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Squeo, 133 Ohio St.3d 536 (2012) (indefinite suspension where repeated violations and lack of cooperation justified serious sanction)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Farrell, 129 Ohio St.3d 223 (2011) (permanent disbarment where extensive, continuing pattern of lying and deceit showed inability to conform conduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Stafford, 131 Ohio St.3d 385 (2012) (actual suspension appropriate for material misrepresentations and pattern of abusing procedures)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Boggs, 129 Ohio St.3d 190 (2011) (indefinite suspension in a third disciplinary matter; prior sanctions considered)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Heiland, 116 Ohio St.3d 521 (2008) (deference to panel credibility determinations absent record strongly to the contrary)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187 (1995) (material misrepresentation to a court critically undermines lawyer–court relationship)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero, 78 Ohio St.3d 351 (1997) (prior suspension for conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero, 134 Ohio St.3d 311 (2012) (prior one-year suspension for revealing prospective-client confidences)