Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that William I. Farrell violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(4) by fabricating employment and banking documents, forging his wife’s signature, and using the forged document to obtain an increased line of credit. The court suspended him from practicing law for two years, staying the second year subject to compliance with specified treatment, probation, and disciplinary conditions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Farrell violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(3) by engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude.
- Whether Farrell violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
- Whether the appropriate sanction was a completely stayed suspension or a two-year suspension with the second year stayed on conditions.
Holdings
- Farrell violated DR 1-102(A)(3) by providing false information and using a forged document to procure an increase in a line of credit.
- Farrell violated DR 1-102(A)(4) by engaging in multiple acts of fabrication, forgery, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.
- A two-year suspension from the practice of law, with the second year stayed on specified remedial conditions, was appropriate.
Key quotations
“Lawyers who choose to engage in fabrication of evidence, deceit, misrepresentation of facts, and distortion of truth do so at their peril. They are admonished that the practice of law is not a right, and our code of professional responsibility demands far more of those in our profession.” (at 532)
“When a lawyer plans and administers “a multistep process to defraud” those entitled to rely on the validity of documents, the violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law.” (at 533)
Factual background
Farrell fabricated multiple letters purporting to be job offers from actual companies and later fabricated letters on Fifth Third Bank and United States Postal Service letterhead to conceal financial misconduct from his wife. He forged his wife's signature on a power of attorney, falsely represented the signature's authenticity to a notary, and used the document to obtain an additional $50,000 on a line of credit secured by the family's home. He admitted that the conduct was illegal and deceitful, but the debt remained unpaid and he did not establish that his depressive disorder caused the misconduct.
Procedural history
The relator filed a disciplinary complaint. A panel heard the matter, considered stipulated facts and misconduct, and recommended a two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions; the board adopted that recommendation. The Supreme Court of Ohio overruled respondent's objection, adopted the findings, and imposed the recommended sanction.