Disciplinary Counsel v. Karris
954 N.E.2d 118
Ohio2011Background
- Respondent Tom John Karris, Ohio attorney since 1982, was charged with professional misconduct for notarizing signatures and testifying about them in deposition.
- Relator filed a two-count complaint on December 7, 2009, alleging improper notarizations and false deposition testimony.
- Board found clear and convincing evidence of dishonesty and conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice, based on three notarizations it deemed improper.
- Board recommended public reprimand for Count One and dismissal of Count Two due to lack of clear and convincing evidence.
- Disciplinary Counsel objected to the public reprimand, seeking a six‑month suspension; the court sustained and imposed a six‑month suspension.
- Aggravating factors included a pattern of misconduct across three documents and partial failure to rectify consequences; mitigating factors included lack of prior discipline and good character.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Karris violate ethics by notarizing signatures suspected of forgery? | Karris committed dishonest notarizations on three occasions. | Karris believed the wife signed those documents in his presence. | Yes; DR 1-102(A)(4) and (A)(6) violated; suspension imposed. |
| Was Count Two proven or should it be dismissed? | Karris falsely testified about notarizations in deposition. | Testimony was based on belief at the time; evidence insufficient to prove misrepresentation. | Count Two dismissed; no clear and convincing evidence. |
| What is the appropriate sanction given the misconduct? | Six-month suspension warranted given aggravating factors. | Public reprimand appropriate under precedent. | Six-month suspension; public reprimand not adopted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dougherty, 105 Ohio St.3d 307 (2005) (notarizing without witnessing signature—mitigating factors may lessen sanction)
- Russell, 114 Ohio St.3d 171 (2007) (single act not as grave as multiple offenses; mitigation supports reprimand)
- Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007) (aggravating/mitigating factors in BCGBD Proceedings)
- Kraemer, 126 Ohio St.3d 163 (2010) (dishonesty-related misconduct warrants suspension)
- Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187 (1995) (dishonesty-related misconduct sanction framework)