Disciplinary Counsel v. Stevens ( 1993 )


Menu:
  •              OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
    Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
    1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
    Thomas J. Moyer.
    Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
    Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
    Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
    Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
    Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
    NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
    full texts of the opinions after they have been released
    electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
    to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
    Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
    The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
    and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
    volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.
    Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Stevens.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stevens (1993),       Ohio
    St.3d      .]
    Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension --
    Reciprocal discipline for resigning from the Florida Bar
    in lieu of disciplinary proceedings with leave to seek
    readmission after ten years.
    (No. 93-1815 -- Submitted November 10, 1993 -- Decided
    December 29, 1993.)
    On Certified Order of the Supreme Court of Florida, No.
    79,905.
    Respondent, A. Karl Stevens, Jr. of Brandon, Florida,
    Attorney 
    Registration No. 0033114,
     has been admitted to the
    practice of law in the state of Ohio. On August 27, 1992, the
    Supreme Court of Florida granted respondent's petition whereby
    he would resign as a Florida attorney in lieu of disciplinary
    proceedings, with leave to seek readmission after ten years.
    Under Florida Disciplinary Rule 3-7.12, a petitioner may resign
    from the Florida Bar during the progress of disciplinary
    proceedings if he files a petition for leave to resign
    containing a statement of all past and pending disciplinary
    actions and criminal proceedings against him. Under Gov. Bar
    R. V 11(F), we may impose reciprocal discipline in Ohio.
    According to respondent's petition filed with the Supreme
    Court of Florida, the Florida Bar Grievance Committee was
    investigating respondent's failure to terminate his
    representation of a client and to inform the client that he had
    been suspended from the practice of law. Respondent's petition
    also reported that respondent had pled guilty to one count of
    uttering a forged instrument, a third degree felony; one count
    of forgery, a third degree felony; and one count of grand
    theft, a second degree felony. Respondent received a sentence
    of two years community control followed by two years of
    probation, with adjudication being withheld. Finally, the
    petition stated that the Florida Supreme Court had imposed the
    following disciplinary action on respondent: public reprimand
    on July 17, 1986, for neglect; suspension for eighteen months
    on June 4, 1990, for trust account violations, false
    statements, conflict of interest and dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
    or misrepresention; and suspension for three years followed by
    probation consecutive with the eighteen-month suspension
    imposed on June 4, 1990, for neglect and communication.
    The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a certified copy
    of the Florida court's order with the Clerk of the Supreme
    Court of Ohio on September 8, 1993. On September 9, 1993, we
    ordered respondent to show cause why we should not impose
    identical or comparable discipline in Ohio. Respondent replied
    to the show cause order but has failed to show cause why we
    should not impose reciprocal discipline.
    Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Alvin E.
    Mathews, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
    A. Karl Stevens, Jr., pro se, for respondent.
    Per Curiam. Respondent's resignation from the Florida Bar
    was disciplinary in nature. Accordingly, we indefinitely
    suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio, effective
    August 27, 1992. This court will not entertain respondent's
    petition for reinstatement in Ohio until he submits proof of
    his readmission to the practice of law in Florida. Costs taxed
    to respondent.
    Judgment accordingly.
    Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.
    Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1993-1815

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/29/1993

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016