{¶ 1} Wе are called upon to determine the appropriate sanction for an attorney who has told his client that the trial judge who presided over his criminal case and who was preparing to sentence him might be persuaded to grant a motion to withdraw the client’s guilty plea if the client had the money “to afford that kind of trеatment.”
{¶ 2} A three-member panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended a six-month stayed suspension and upon review, the еntire board recommended a public reprimand. We reject both recommendations. For the following reasons, the conduct in question warrants an indefinite suspеnsion from the practice of law.
{¶ 3} Relator, the Dayton Bar Association, filed a complaint against respondent, attorney Daniel L. O’Brien, Attorney Registration No. 0070531, of Dayton, Ohio, after receiving a complaint from Kurtis Wallace, one of O’Brien’s clients. O’Brien has been licensed to practice law in Ohio since 1999 and has previously represented Wallace in several legal matters. In the instant case, Wallace hired O’Brien to represent him'in connection with criminal charges of identity theft and forgery before Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael T. Hall. O’Brien entered into plea negotiations with the prosecutor, and as a rеsult, Wallace pled guilty to identity theft in exchange for the dismissal of the forgery charge. The court continued the matter for sentencing.
{¶ 4} On the day of sentencing, O’Brien met with thе prosecutor in Judge Hall’s chambers, where the judge informed them that he declined to impose a sentence of community control and that he intended to incarcerate Wallace. O’Brien left the chambers and informed Wallace of the judge’s intentions. Upset with the pending sentence, Wallace fled the courthouse and failed to appear in the courtroom for sentencing.
{¶ 6} “If you want a first class legal defense you gotta pay for a first class dеfense and if that means that I look around, then I say who does the judge owe a favor to, I’m walking around talking with the best of the best and I say I need you to come in on one favor, I need to withdraw the guilty plea and we need to show up there together and I need you to bring it. If I don’t think I can bring it, I get somebody who does. You know what I mean? That’s the kind оf thing that you pay for and that way once he’s got what we need done, we send him out, we come back in and we deal with the rest of it. I mean if you want high priced stuff that’s how you get it and we’ve done big magic, big magic for people who had the money to be able to afford that kind of treatment.”
{¶ 7} Wallace never paid any money to O’Brien; instead, he hired another attorney to represent him and he filed a grievance against O’Brien with the Dayton Bar Association. Wallace’s new counsel prоvided the tape to Judge Hall, who had the case transferred. Following investigation, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard O’Brien’s case. The panel found that O’Brien violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 9-101(C). DR 1-102(A)(5) provides that a lawyer shall not “[ejngage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” DR 9-101(C) states that “a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official.” EC 9-4- states the rationale for DR 9-101(C): “Because the very essence of the legal system is to provide procedures by which matters can be presented in an impartial manner so that they may be decided solely upon the merits, any statement or suggestion by a lawyer that he can or would attempt to circumvent those procedures is detrimental to the legal system and tends to undermine public confidence in it.”
{¶ 8} The panel recommended a six-month suspension of O’Brien’s license to practice law with all six months stayed if O’Brien demonstrated no further disciplinary problems and if a mentor from the Dayton Bar Association monitored his caseload. The Board of Commissioners оn Grievances and Discipline accepted the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law but modified the recommended sanction to a public reprimand.
{¶ 9} We have previously imposed an indefinite suspension on attorneys for similar actions. In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Benis (1983),
{¶ 10} Further, we permanently disbarred an attorney who falsely represented to a client that he could bribe a federal judge presiding over his case. Disciplinary Counsel v. Atkin (1999),
{¶ 11} In another matter, we indefinitely suspended an attorney for telling his client that if the client paid him $2,500, the attorney would pay other persons who, in turn, would use their influence to obtain shock probation for the client. Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Consoldane (1977),
{¶ 12} Thus, we have repeatedly stressed our disdain for any statements by an attorney that imply the corruptibility of the judicial system or that the attorney can improperly influence a judicial officer. We have consistently imposed sеvere sanctions on attorneys who choose to engage in such misconduct. This case warrants a similar sanction. The board’s recommendation of a publiс reprimand fails to consider the seriousness of O’Brien’s conduct. His statements expressly suggested corruption in the court system, impugned the integrity of the judiciary, and maligned the reputation of Judge Hall. It is irrelevant that O’Brien failed to collect any money from Wallace or never acted on his statements. The suggestion of improper influence to affect the outcome of a matter pending before Judge Hall constituted an egregious violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and warrants a severe sanction.
{¶ 13} Lawyers are officers of the court and, as such, they must strive to uphold the integrity of judicial officers before whom they apрear. By their oath, lawyers are charged with high ethical standards which, as professionals, they are
{¶ 14} Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.