Bar Ass'n v. Chvosta
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mandel (Md. 1982)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Forbes (Ohio 2009)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. McAuliffe (Ohio 2009)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Warner (Ohio 2024)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hunter (Ohio 2023)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Smith (Wash. 2011)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Smith (Wash. 2011)
- In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Smith (Wash. 2011)
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Harris (Ohio 1982)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Armengau (Ohio 2026)
- Portage County Bar Ass'n v. Miller (Ohio 1982)
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Gloeckner (Ohio 1982)
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
Respondent’s sole contention before this court is that he should not be suspended for an indefinite period because he was denied due process of law in both the trial and appeal of his criminal case. Respondent does not contend that he was not convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Gov. R. V (8)(b) states:
“A certified copy of a judgment entry of conviction of an offense shall be conclusive evidence of the commission of that offense in any disciplinary proceedings instituted against an attorney based upon the conviction.”
This rule makes it clear that a disciplinary proceeding is not an appropriate forum in which to collaterally attack a criminal conviction. Respondent has exhausted all appeals from his conviction.
Upon a careful review of the evidence and stipulation, the court concludes that respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and DR 1-102(A)(6). Therefore, respondent, Jerry F. Chvosta, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.