[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                        AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. COOMBS.
               [Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Coombs, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension with sanction stayed—
        Practicing law before admission to practice law—Improper notarization of
        leases.
     (No. 98-2656—Submitted February 10, 1999—Decided April 28, 1999.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-69.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} On March 2, 1998, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed an amended
complaint charging respondent, Robert J. Coombs of Akron, Ohio, Attorney

 with violating several Disciplinary Rules. After
respondent answered, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court.
        {¶ 2} The panel found that after respondent had graduated from law school
and before he was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in May 1992, he
represented Samuel Vitrano in several legal matters. In June 1991, he appeared in
Akron Municipal Court for Vitrano in a criminal matter and signed a release of
claims by Vitrano against the city in return for the city’s dismissal of a criminal
assault charge against Vitrano. Respondent billed Vitrano $75 per hour for his legal
services in connection with the dismissal of the criminal charge, including
respondent’s conferences with the prosecutor, witnesses, and the court, as well as
his attendance at a pretrial hearing. In August 1991, respondent wrote a letter to
Vitrano, advising him to settle a case involving a contract dispute with the
Connecticut School of Broadcasting.              In November and December 1991,
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




respondent performed legal services for Vitrano involving a child-support matter,
including drafting a proposed child-support order.
       {¶ 3} The panel further found that in September 1992, only a few months
after respondent was admitted to practice law in Ohio, respondent prepared two
separate leases for Vitrano, Vitrano’s wife, Karen, and John and Sharon Kolinoff.
Respondent notarized Karen Vitrano’s signature on both leases, even though she
did not appear before him either to sign the leases or acknowledge the signatures
on the leases. Respondent subsequently settled a malpractice case brought against
him by the Vitranos.
       {¶ 4} The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct in representing
Vitrano in legal matters before respondent was admitted to practice law violated
DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation), (5) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration
of justice), and (6) (engaging in any other conduct that adversely reflects on
lawyer’s fitness to practice law).        The panel additionally concluded that
respondent’s conduct in notarizing Vitrano’s wife’s signature on the leases even
though she did not sign the leases violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 7-102(A)(5)
(knowingly making a false statement of law or fact), (6) (participating in the
creation of evidence when attorney knows or it is obvious that the evidence is false),
and (8) (knowingly engaging in other illegal conduct or conduct contrary to a
Disciplinary Rule).
       {¶ 5} In mitigation, the panel found respondent’s misconduct, though not
justified by respondent’s claims at the hearing that he had not engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law, were isolated incidents that occurred either before or
shortly after respondent’s admission to the bar, and that since the time of these
incidents, respondent had no disciplinary violations and had established himself as
a competent practitioner. The panel recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for six months, with the suspension stayed and respondent




                                          2
                               January Term, 1999




placed on six months’ probation and monitoring by relator. The board adopted the
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the panel.
                              __________________
       Alfred E. Schrader and Michael C. Scanlon, for relator.
       Robert J. Coombs, pro se.
                              __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 6} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
board. Contrary to respondent’s assertions at the hearing, the practice of law
encompasses those activities that are incidental to appearances in court, including
the preparation of legal documents and the management of proceedings on behalf
of clients. Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Clapp (1998), 

, 

.
       {¶ 7} Respondent’s misconduct, which included his improper notarization
of the leases, warrants a six-month suspension from the practice of law with the
entire term stayed. Cf. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Reisenfeld (1998), 

, 

, where we imposed a similar sanction for
misconduct that included submitting improperly notarized affidavits to a court,
emphasizing that these improper actions were a “few isolated incidents in otherwise
unblemished legal careers.” Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of
law for six months, with the suspension stayed and respondent placed on six
months’ probation, to be monitored by relator. Costs taxed to respondent.
                                                           Judgment accordingly.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                              __________________




                                        3