Disciplinary Counsel v. Kramer

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that disciplinary counsel had authority to investigate an anonymous grievance concerning attorney Roger Stephen Kramer, notwithstanding a certified grievance committee’s earlier dismissal of a related grievance. The court adopted the board’s recommendation imposing a one-year suspension, stayed in its entirety on the condition that Kramer commit no further misconduct. The decision involved violations of Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) arising from falsified public-employment time records.

Holdings

1. Kramer violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) by knowingly falsifying his public-employee time records.
2. Under the Rules for the Government of the Bar as they then existed, disciplinary counsel had authority to review and investigate the anonymous grievance and pursue disciplinary action; nothing in the rules limited that authority merely because a certified grievance committee had declined to file a complaint concerning related conduct.
3. A one-year suspension from the practice of law, stayed in its entirety on the condition that Kramer engage in no further misconduct, was warranted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Kramer violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) by knowingly falsifying public-employee time records.
2. Whether disciplinary counsel had authority under the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio to investigate and pursue discipline based on a separate anonymous grievance after a certified grievance committee declined to file a complaint concerning related conduct.
3. What sanction was appropriate for Kramer's misconduct.

Disposition

other