Disciplinary Counsel v. Pappas
141 Ohio St. 3d 1
| Ohio | 2014Background
- George Zane Pappas, admitted 1986, had prior disciplinary suspensions for registration and CLE failures and was subject to an interim felony suspension in 2012 after a federal conviction.
- From 2004–2006 Pappas made repeated false statements claiming ownership of his friend Aristotle Matsa’s Columbus law firm: in a 2004 affidavit filed in a divorce case, in a 2004 written response to disciplinary counsel, to IRS agents in 2006, under oath before a federal grand jury in 2006, and in a 2006 letter to the Department of Justice.
- The false statements were made to help Matsa avoid disclosure in divorce and subpoena proceedings; Pappas did not financially benefit and the record shows he was likely unaware of Matsa’s long-running tax-fraud scheme.
- Pappas later cooperated extensively with federal authorities, pled guilty in 2010 to making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and assisted in the prosecution of Matsa; he served home confinement and probation.
- The Board found violations of multiple Disciplinary Rules for dishonesty, prejudicing the administration of justice, and knowingly using false evidence; it recommended a two-year suspension with credit for interim suspension time.
- The Supreme Court accepted the findings and imposed a two-year suspension but declined to credit time served under the interim felony suspension; costs taxed to Pappas.
Issues
| Issue | Disciplinary Counsel (Plaintiff) | Pappas (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pappas’s false statements and affidavit violated disciplinary rules | Misrepresentations to court, relator, IRS, grand jury, and DOJ constituted dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to justice | Lies were made to protect a friend, no financial gain, later full cooperation and remorse | Court: Violations of multiple DRs established (dishonesty, prejudicial to administration of justice, false evidence/testimony) |
| Appropriate sanction for felony conviction and related misconduct | Two-year suspension with credit for interim felony suspension (board recommended credit) | Emphasized cooperation, remorse, lack of personal gain; sought lesser sanction/credit | Court: Two-year suspension imposed but denied credit for interim felony suspension time |
| Whether mitigating factors (cooperation, remorse, character) mitigate the sanction to avoid longer suspension | Mitigation supports lesser sanction than indefinite suspension | Mitigation and cooperation warrant credit for time served | Court: Mitigating factors reduce sanction to two years but do not justify credit for interim suspension |
| Whether disbarment is required given multiple false statements including under oath | Argues suspension appropriate given lack of financial gain and substantial mitigation | Some (dissent) argue misconduct is egregious enough to require disbarment | Court: Majority rejects disbarment; dissent would disbar (Justice O’Donnell) |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Blaszak, 104 Ohio St.3d 330 (2004) (two-year suspension with credit for interim suspension for conviction involving attempted sale of testimony)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Margolis, 114 Ohio St.3d 165 (2007) (two-year suspension without credit for interim suspension for federal antitrust conviction involving large-scale bid rigging)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett, 124 Ohio St.3d 314 (2010) (indefinite suspension with credit for interim suspension for illegal structuring of transactions to evade reporting)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 128 Ohio St.3d 390 (2011) (indefinite suspension with credit for interim suspension for false tax returns and conspiracy to defraud IRS)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Camera, 68 Ohio St.3d 478 (1994) (indefinite suspension without credit for interim suspension for perjury in false affidavit)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Derryberry, 54 Ohio St.3d 107 (1990) (two-year suspension with credit for interim suspension for perjury by trustee-attorney; relied on as precedent supporting two-year term)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187 (1995) (statement that material misrepresentation to a court strikes at core of lawyer’s relationship with the court)