Case Information
*1
[Cite as
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Greenberg,
D AYTON B AR A SSOCIATION v . G REENBERG .
[Cite as
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Greenberg,
with no credit for time served under the interim felony suspension. (No. 2012-2066—Submitted February 6, 2013—Decided May 1, 2013.) N ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Bоard of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-092.
__________________
Per Curiam.
Respondent, Marc Norman Greenberg of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0077480, was admittеd to the practice of law in Ohio in 2004.
We suspended Greenberg’s license to practice law on November 23, 2010, on an
interim basis pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), upon recеiving notice that he
had been convicted of a felony.
In re Greenberg
, 127 Ohio St.3d 1437, 2010-
Ohio-5690,
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) and (h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyеr’s fitness to practice law). A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the case, including the parties’ stipulations to the сited misconduct, made findings of misconduct, and recommended an indefinite suspension with no credit for time served under the interim suspension. The board adopted the panel’s findings and recommended sanction, and, after the board issued its report, the parties stipulated to the findings and sanction. We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. Having considered *2 Greenberg’s misconduct, the aggravating and mitigating factors present, and the sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct, we аdopt the board’s recommended sanction.
Misconduct The stipulated facts and testimony demonstrate that from February
to April 2009, Greenberg used his computer to make cоntact with three undercover law-enforcement officers who were posing on the Internet as 12- and 13-year-old girls. He entered various chat rooms that were gеared toward meeting minor girls and identified himself at various times as an 18-year-old, a 25-year-old, and a 31-year-old male. A series of sexually explicit conversations еnsued between Greenberg and the undercover agents, during which Greenberg used his computer’s webcam to stream to the agents video and pictures of his exposed penis and of himself masturbating. Greenberg was indicted in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. The indictment alleged that he had transferred obscene material to minors in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1470. Through plea negotiations, the initial indictment was dismissed in favor of a bill of information that alleged two counts: one count of possessing child pornography and one count of transferring obscene material to minors. Greenberg entered a plea of guilty to both counts on August 4, 2010, and was sentenced to two years in a federal penitentiary. In addition to the prison sentence, the federal court ordered that after his release Greenberg serve five years of supervised release, and it classified him as a sex offender, allowing only incidental contact with minor children, except his biological children, unless оtherwise approved. Greenberg was incarcerated on December 21, 2010, and was released on September 13, 2012. Upon his arrest in May 2009, Greenberg had voluntarily stоpped practicing law and had changed the status of his license to inactive.
January Term, 2013 Based on these facts, the panel and the board found that Greenberg
had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and (h) and recommended that he be indefinitely suspended, with no credit for time served under the interim felony suspension imposed on November 23, 2010. We agree.
Sanction When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the
sanctions imposed in similar cases.
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli
, 96 Ohio
St.3d 424,
Greenberg has no prior disciplinary record, voluntarily stopped practicing law, exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, acknowledged the wrongful nature of his misconduct, and made good-faith efforts to rectify the consequences of his actions. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d). The board further found, as mitigating factors, that Greenberg has been subject to severe sanctions and penalties. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f). Greenberg was sentenced to two years in a federal penitentiary 1,800 miles from his family, but was released early for good bеhavior; he was on home confinement for 19 months before his incarceration; he is under a five-year period of supervised release that began upon his rеlease from incarceration; he must register as a sex offender; he is restricted to limited contact with minor children, except his biological children; he was subjеct to public humiliation as a result of *4 highly publicized proceedings; he has suffered financial devastation; and he will never be permitted to coach basketbаll again.
{¶ 8} Although the board did not find that Greenberg’s mental condition qualified as a mental disability under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g), we additionally note that Greenberg participated in therаpy before his incarceration and while he was in prison and that he plans to continue therapy for his diagnosed mental disorder, paraphilia. The board fоund that three aggravating factors were present:
Greenberg exhibited a selfish motive in that he sought to use minors for self- gratification, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), he committed multiple оffenses, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d), and he intended to prey on vulnerable 12- and 13-year-old children. The board cites Disciplinary Counsel v. Butler , 128 Ohio St.3d
319,
Ohio-4091, 913 N.E.2d 443, is also instructive. In that case, we imposed an indefinite suspension with credit for time served under an interim suspension order for misconduct involving aсts of voyeurism and use of child pornography. The respondent in Ridenbaugh , as was Greenberg, was a young lawyer relatively new to the practice with no prior discipline, he fully cooperated in both the
January Term, 2013
disciplinary and criminal processes, and he made every attempt to rectify his misconduct by seeking and continuing treatment for his disоrders. Id. at ¶ 15-17. The aggravating factors were similar to those here: a selfish motive and multiple offenses. Id. at ¶ 20-22. Also, as did Greenberg, the respondent deeply regretted his misсonduct and the devastating effects on his family, friends, and colleagues, as noted by the court. When a lawyer engages in or attempts to engage in sexually
motivatеd conduct with an underage person, an indefinite suspension of the
lawyer’s license to practice is appropriate.
Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldblatt,
118
Ohio St.3d 310,
Judgment accordingly. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , and F RENCH , JJ., concur.
O’D ONNELL , J., dissents and would disbar Greenberg.
O’N EILL , J., dissents and would grant Greenberg credit for time served under his interim felony suspension.
__________________
Altick & Corwin Co., L.P.A., and Peter R. Certo, for relator.
Bieser, Greer & Landis, L.L.P., David C. Greer, and Gretchen M.
Treherne, for respondent.
______________________