OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. CICERO
No. 96-1432
Supreme Court of Ohio
May 14, 1997
78 Ohio St.3d 351 | 1997-Ohio-207
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justiсe—Failing to maintain a respectful attitude toward the courts.
{¶ 1} On December 5, 1994, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging respondent, Christopher Thomas Cicero of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0039882, with violating several Disciplinary Rules in two separate counts: one count relating to his relationship in 1993 with a judge of the common pleas court and the second count relating to his representation of a criminal defendant during 1991-1992. After respondent filed an answer, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board“) on September 11 and 12, 1995, and later at a reopened hearing on February 8, 1996 at relator‘s request.
{¶ 2} The hearing evidence established that in October 1993, common pleas judge Deborah O‘Neill appointed respondent to represent a criminal defendant in a case pending before her. Judge O‘Neill‘s involvement in that case ended when, at the suggestion of the prosecuting attоrney and respondent, the judge recused herself on December 17, 1993. Respondent tried the case to its conclusion.
{¶ 3} During the period that the case was pending before Judge O‘Neill, respondent led several members of the bar, including the opposing assistant prosecuting attorney, to believе that respondent had an ongoing sexual relationship
{¶ 4} Respondent acknowledges making exaggerated statements relating to his level of intimacy with the judge during the time she presided over his case. Respondent testified at the hearing that, although he had previously developed romantic feelings toward the judge, a sexual relationship did not develop until she had recused herself from the cаse.
{¶ 5} At the February 8, 1996 reopened hearing, Norma Mitchell testified that prior to January 1994, both respоndent and the judge had confided in her that they were involved in a sexual relationship. Mitchell‘s testimony was introduced for the purpose of demonstrating that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) by lying about the timing of his rеlationship with the judge during investigations of the case, his deposition, and the disciplinary hearings.
{¶ 6} On count one, the panel concluded that respondent‘s actions violated
{¶ 8} In response to an order to show cause issued by this court, relator filed objections tо the report and recommendations of the board, and respondent filed an answering brief.
Geоffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, Alvin E. Mathews and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel; and Samuel B. Weiner, for relator.
Andrew W. Cecil, Karl H. Schneider and Lewis W. Dye, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 9} Relator objects to the board‘s report in two significant respects. Relator‘s first objection is that the board erred in finding that the relator did not file an amended complaint adding a
{¶ 10} We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of lаw of the board, but impose a more stringent sanction of a one-year suspension from the practice of law based on the gravity of respondent‘s disciplinary violations. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., COOK and GLASSER, JJ., concur.
RESNICK, J., concurs in judgment only.
DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent and would adopt the recommendations of the panel and the board.