Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Stein
Cases that cite this one
54 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Abood (Ohio 2004)
- Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Stimmel (Ohio 1980)
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Dixon (Ohio 1974)
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Dunbar (Ohio 1980)
- Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Pandilidis (Ohio 1979)
- Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Westbrock (Ohio 1978)
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. Walman (Md. 1977)
- Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Tekulve (Ohio 1975)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Character (Ohio 2011)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Newman (Ohio 2010)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Robinson (Ohio 2010)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Forbes (Ohio 2009)
- Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Farrell (Ohio 2008)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Margolis (Ohio 2007)
- Akron Bar Ass'n v. Carter (Ohio 2007)
- Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Hennekes (Ohio 2006)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Connor (Ohio 2004)
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. King (Ohio 1998)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. King (Ohio 1998)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. VanBibber (Ohio 2024)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. VanBibber (Ohio 2024)
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nelson (Ohio 2022)
- Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. Moody. (Ohio 2018)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Alsfelder (Ohio 2014)
- In re Application of Daubenmire (Ohio 2013)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Failure of an attorney to timely file his income tax return constitutes a violation of Canon 29 and Canon 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, and also violates Rule XVIII(5) (a) of the Rules of Practice of this court.
Canon 29, entitled “Upholding the Honor of the Profession,” reads, in part:
• <<* * * He should strive at all times to uphold the honor and to maintain the dignity of the profession * * *.”
“* * * He must also observe and advise his client to observe the statute law * *
Rule XVIII, entitled “Disciplinary Procedure,” defines, in Section (5)(a), what actions constitute misconduct:
“Misconduct shall mean * * * any violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics * * *.”
Any candor of respondent reflected in the facts set forth above comes too late, and the question which concerns us is the degree of discipline.
We recognize that in the past there has not been a consistent policy adhered to by this court in the discipline applied in cases of this nature. And we understand how the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, in the light of certain precedents, arrived at its recommendation that a public reprimand be imposed as discipline.
However, we choose not to follow this recommendation under the facts reflected in the record in this proceeding. We are of the opinion that the time has come to establish and publicly announce a pattern of consistency in the imposition of discipline in cases of wilful failure by an attorney licensed to practice in Ohio to make an income tax return.
Respondent pleaded guilty to the crime of wilfully failing to make an income tax return for the year 1965. Charges involving similar offenses for three other years were dismissed in the United States District Court.
The law which respondent failed to respect affects many millions of persons in the United States. They are required to obey that law whether they like it or otherwise. Each of those persons is charged with knowledge of the existence of that law. There is nothing new about this federal requirment to file an income tax return because our country has had such laws following the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on February 25, 1913.
For the foregoing reasons this court is of the opinion that the acts committed by respondent warrant disciplinary measures more severe than a public reprimand. Consequently, we impose upon respondent the discipline of indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.