Disciplinary Counsel v. Wexler
139 Ohio St. 3d 597
| Ohio | 2014Background
- respondent Ilan Wexler admitted to Ohio bar in 1980;
- complaint filed Dec 6, 2012 alleging misconduct related to a client relationship and disciplinary investigation;
- board panel dismissed several alleged violations but found at least one violation: knowingly making a false statement in a disciplinary matter;
- hotel bill in December 2010 connected to Moore-Brown investigation;
- Wexler admitted after deposition that his responses were misleading and that he signed the hotel registration and used his card;
- board recommended six-month stayed suspension; court adopts and imposes six-month stayed suspension with no further misconduct
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wexler violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a) | Disciplinary Counsel argues Wexler knowingly lied to relator | Wexler contends the hotel bill story was false or disputed | Yes, Wexler violated 8.1(a) |
| Whether the sanction of a six-month stay is appropriate | Board's recommendation supported by case law | No specific argument provided beyond board recommendation | Six-month stay imposed, conditioned on no further misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (Ohio 2002) (aggravating factors and standard of misconduct sanctions guidance)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Zaffiro, 127 Ohio St.3d 5 (Ohio 2010) (six-month stayed suspension where remedial conduct shown)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach, 130 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2011) (dishonesty and documentation issues affecting sanction; factors for suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (Ohio 2007) (aggravating/mitigating factors in sanction decisions)