[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GINSBERG.
            [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ginsberg, 

.]
      (No. 96-2477—Submitted January 22, 1997—Decided April 30, 1997.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-23.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} On February 13, 1996, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint alleging that respondent, Melvin R. Ginsberg of Cleveland, Ohio,
Attorney 

 had pled guilty in federal district court and was
convicted of conspiracy to impede the collection of income taxes. Relator charged
that this felony conviction establishes that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3)
(illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct
adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law). In March 1996, pursuant to
Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(3), we issued an order indefinitely suspending respondent
from the practice of law in Ohio. In re Ginsberg (1996), 

, 

.
        {¶ 2} On July 1, 1996, a hearing was held before a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”),
which found that respondent began to practice law in 1977 by opening two legal
clinics which catered to the middle-class working individual.                  Prior to his
conviction, respondent had an impeccable reputation in the community and
primarily handled real estate, probate, domestic relations, bankruptcy, and small
commercial business matters. The panel found that in 1988, after being contacted
by an attorney friend, respondent agreed to represent Reuben Sturman in real estate,
trust, and corporate areas of the law, believing this representation would provide an
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




opportunity for him to move to a more “glamorous” legal practice. Respondent was
aware at the time that he undertook this representation that Sturman was involved
in several controversies with the Internal Revenue Service.
       {¶ 3} Respondent’s work for Sturman consisted primarily in representing
Gemstone, Inc., a company controlled by Sturman, in the acquisition of real estate,
the management of commercial properties, and the filing, although not the
preparation, of its federal tax returns. Some of respondent’s services, particularly
those involving negotiations with Swiss and Panamanian attorneys, offshore trusts,
and the transfers of real estate to and from Gemstone, were based on information
supplied by others working with Sturman, which respondent, being inexperienced
in the legal areas involved, did not question. Ultimately, the Internal Revenue
Service filed charges against several persons connected with Sturman and
Gemstone for conspiracy to evade taxes. Respondent was among those charged.
       {¶ 4} From the inception of the federal investigation in September 1993,
respondent recognized his wrongdoing and cooperated with prosecutors in their
efforts to obtain convictions against the conspirators. Respondent was indicted in
January 1995 and pled guilty in September of that year. Although respondent was
convicted on the basis of his guilty plea, both the prosecuting attorney and a
treasury agent praised his cooperation and his remorse. The penalty imposed by
the federal court, three years of probation, including six months of home
confinement, three hundred hours of community service, and no fine, was the least
severe penalty that could be imposed for the crime charged.
       {¶ 5} The panel concluded that respondent’s actions had violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) and (6), and recommended that the respondent be indefinitely suspended
from the practice of law with no credit for time served. The board adopted the
findings and conclusions of the panel, but also found a violation of DR 1-102(A)(3)
(illegal conduct involving moral turpitude). The board recommended an indefinite
suspension with no credit for time served.



                                         2
                                January Term, 1997




                               __________________
       Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Alvin E. Mathews, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
       Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
                               __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 6} Upon review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the board. For violations of Section 371, Title 18, U.S. Code,
we have previously imposed an indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
Disciplinary Counsel v. Felman (1995), 

, 

. Here,
the record demonstrates that respondent had an excellent reputation prior to his
felony conviction, that he worked with prosecutors and the IRS to unravel a
complicated tax conspiracy, and that he has shown remorse for his actions.
Nevertheless, respondent’s recognition of his involvement in this scheme to impede
the IRS and his cooperation with federal authorities did not commence until after
the formal investigation began. We see no reason to retreat from the type of sanction
we have previously imposed.
       {¶ 7} Taking the facts most favorably to respondent, we find a case where
an attorney’s reach for a more sophisticated practice exceeded his grasp of the legal
tools required to work competently in the field. As a result, respondent did not try
to nor was he able to understand the illegal or fraudulent actions which his clients
were requesting. Our ethical considerations indicate that an attorney should accept
employment only in matters which he is or intends to become competent to handle.
This situation demonstrates what may befall an attorney unable to perform the “due
diligence” necessary to practice in a particular area of law.
       {¶ 8} We hereby indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law
in Ohio with no credit for time served. Costs taxed to respondent.
                                                                Judgment accordingly.




                                          3
                         SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




      MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                           __________________




                                   4