Disciplinary Counsel v. Sweeney

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                  OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL V. SWEENEY.
             [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Sweeney, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Conviction for false
        statements in relation to documents required by ERISA.
         (No. 97-440--Submitted April 16, 1997--Decided June 18, 1997.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-63.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} On September 26, 1996, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(2), we
indefinitely suspended respondent, Raymond J. Sweeney of Andover,
Massachusetts, Attorney 

 from the practice of law in
Ohio based upon notification by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) that respondent had been convicted of a
felony in a federal court in Virginia. In that same order, we referred the matter to
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, relator, for investigation.
        {¶ 2} On August 12, 1996, relator filed a complaint charging that
respondent’s conduct resulting in his felony conviction constituted a violation DR
1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation) and 2-107(A)(1) (division of fees among lawyers in proportion
to the services performed by each lawyer). Respondent failed to answer the
complaint, and relator filed a motion for default judgment.
        {¶ 3} Based on the evidence attached to the motion, a panel of the board
found that while serving as counsel to the Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension
Fund from April 1990 until approximately July 26, 1991, respondent was also
professionally affiliated with the Washington, D.C. law firm of Katz & Ranzman.
During that period, respondent submitted bills to the pension fund falsely
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




attributing material amounts of legal work to attorneys affiliated with Katz &
Ranzman when that legal work was properly attributable to himself. Because he
submitted such bills, respondent was charged with violating Section 1027, Title 18,
U.S. Code (false statements in relation to documents required by ERISA).
Respondent pled guilty to the felony charge, was convicted, and was placed on two
years’ probation and fined $7,500.
       {¶ 4} The panel concluded that the respondent had violated the Disciplinary
Rules as charged and recommended that he be indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law in Ohio.     The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the panel.
                               __________________
       Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Cynthia C. Roehl, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
                               __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 5} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
board. Respondent is hereby suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in
Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
                                                           Judgment accordingly.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                               __________________




                                        2