[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                   OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL V. CICERO.
            [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension—Engaging in conduct
        prejudicial to the administration of justice—Failing to maintain a
        respectful attitude toward the courts.
       (No. 96-1432—Submitted January 7, 1997—Decided May 14, 1997.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-81.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} On December 5, 1994, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint charging respondent, Christopher Thomas Cicero of Columbus, Ohio,
Attorney 

 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 attorney 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 believe that respondent had an ongoing sexual relationship
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




with the judge. At one point, respondent indicated to the prosecutor that the judge
would probably deny a continuance because of her desire to get the case resolved
so that she could engage respondent in sex over the Christmas holidays. This
incident illustrates respondent’s impropriety in the manner that he represented his
relationship with Judge O’Neill before and after she recused herself from the case.
The evidence additionally suggests that respondent’s client became aware of
respondent’s boasting and informed other inmates that they should retain
respondent.
       {¶ 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 case.
       {¶ 5} At the February 8, 1996 reopened hearing, Norma Mitchell testified
that prior to January 1994, both respondent 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 relationship 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
DR 1-102(A)(5)(engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice) and Gov.Bar R. IV (2) (duty of a lawyer to maintain a respectful attitude
toward the courts). Finding that Disciplinary Counsel failed to file an amended
complaint regarding the alleged DR 1-102(A)(4) violation, the panel did not issue
a ruling on that issue. The panel concluded that Disciplinary Counsel failed to carry
its burden of providing clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the
remaining allegations under count one and all of count two.




                                          2
                                  January Term, 1997




         {¶ 7} In light of its findings, the panel recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one year with six months of the suspension
stayed. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
panel.
         {¶ 8} In response to an order to show cause issued by this court, relator filed
objections to the report and recommendations of the board, and respondent filed an
answering brief.
                                __________________
         Geoffrey 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 DR 1-102(A)(4) violation to count one. Relator’s
next objection is that the board erred in failing to find a DR 9-101(C) violation
under the facts presented at the hearings. Because of a lack of clear and convincing
evidence to support either violation, we overrule both the relator’s objections.
         {¶ 10} We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 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.




                                            3
                        SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




      GEORGE M. GLASSER, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J.
                          __________________




                                   4