[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                       CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. FIDLER.
              [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Fidler, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Eighteen-month suspension with one year of the
        sanction stayed on conditions—Convictions for shoplifting—Withholding
        the truth during a disciplinary investigation.
      (No. 97-2641—Submitted May 13, 1998—Decided October 14, 1998.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                    Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-112.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} On April 19, 1985, respondent, Mark W. Fidler of Cincinnati, Ohio,
Attorney 

 was arrested for taking four compact disks
from Swallens’ Department Store in Springdale, Ohio. He paid a fine after pleading
guilty to petty theft in the Springdale Mayor’s Court. On March 14, 1996, the
MicroCenter computer store at Sharonville, Ohio, charged respondent with petty
theft for concealing three compact disks on his person. Respondent pled no contest
in the Sharonville Mayor’s Court, was convicted of disorderly conduct, and paid a
fine of $100.
        {¶ 2} Respondent reported his 1996 conviction, but not his 1985 conviction,
to the relator, Cincinnati Bar Association. When interviewed by relator with
respect to that report, respondent specifically denied that he had ever stolen
anything on any prior occasion. Later, in a sworn statement, respondent told relator
of the 1985 conviction, stating that he had not revealed it earlier because at that
time he believed it had been expunged from his record.
        {¶ 3} Respondent failed to register timely his status as an attorney with the
Ohio Supreme Court for five successive biennial periods, registering from two days
to five months late.
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       {¶ 4} On December 9, 1996, relator filed a complaint charging that
respondent’s convictions, his failure to report his 1985 conviction, and his failures
to register timely with the Supreme Court constituted violations of the Disciplinary
Rules. Respondent answered, and on June 12, 1997, a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”) heard evidence and
received a stipulation of the parties.
       {¶ 5} The panel found the facts as stated and concluded that respondent’s
1985 shoplifting violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving
moral turpitude), (4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation), and (6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon the
fitness to practice law). It further concluded that respondent’s failure to report the
1985 conviction violated DR 1-103(A) (a lawyer with unprivileged knowledge of
a violation of DR 1-102 shall report such knowledge to an authority empowered to
investigate the violation). It concluded that respondent’s failure to timely register
for several registration periods reflected a pattern of dishonesty and evasion of
responsibility, which constituted a violation of DR 1-102(A)(6). And because
respondent practiced during a time when he was not in good standing, the panel
concluded that he violated DR 3-101(B) (a lawyer shall not practice in a jurisdiction
where to do so would be in violation of the regulations of the profession in that
jurisdiction). In mitigation the panel received evidence that at the time of the thefts
respondent was under great personal stress. It also received sixteen character letters
from lawyers and judges. The panel recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for eighteen months with one year of the suspension stayed
pending successful completion of a one-year probation period and appropriate
counseling to address the problems that caused respondent to engage in the
underlying misconduct.       The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the panel.
                               __________________




                                          2
                                January Term, 1998




       W. Breck Weigel, Thomas S. Shore and Maria C. Palermo, for relator.
       H. Fred Hoefle, for respondent.
                              __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 6} We adopt the findings of fact of the board.         We conclude that
respondent’s convictions for shoplifting were, as respondent stipulated, in violation
of DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), and (6). We further conclude that respondent’s failure to
report his 1985 conviction when specifically questioned violated DR 1-103(A).
       {¶ 7} Recently, when an attorney withheld the truth during a disciplinary
investigation, we imposed a definite suspension. Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Derivan
(1998), 

, 

. We find a definite suspension
appropriate in this case. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law
for eighteen months with one year of the suspension stayed pending successful
completion of a one-year probation period and appropriate counseling to address
the problems that caused respondent to engage in the underlying misconduct. Cost
taxed to respondent.
                                                             Judgment accordingly.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                              __________________




                                         3