Disciplinary Counsel v. Rossi

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that attorney Gregg August Rossi violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) by making a false statement in a pleading and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The misconduct included implicitly encouraging a client to violate a no-contact order and drafting a nondisclosure agreement intended to influence or thwart the prosecution of criminal charges. The court imposed a six-month suspension, with reinstatement conditioned on completion of six additional hours of ethics, professionalism, and Marsy’s Law continuing legal education.

Holdings

1. Rossi violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) by knowingly falsely stating in a court filing that he had negotiated the nondisclosure agreement with T.D.
2. Rossi violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) by implicitly encouraging Yerkey to violate the bond no-contact order, falsely describing the origin of the nondisclosure agreement, and drafting the agreement to interfere with the prosecution of the criminal case.
3. A contractual provision that purports to prevent disclosure of information about alleged crimes to law-enforcement authorities is unenforceable as against public policy, even absent coercion.
4. A six-month actual suspension from the practice of law, with reinstatement conditioned on completion of six additional hours of specified continuing legal education, was appropriate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rossi violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) by knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal.
2. Whether Rossi violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) by implicitly encouraging violation of a bond no-contact order, drafting an agreement intended to influence or thwart a pending criminal prosecution, and failing to explain the agreement to T.D. or recommend that she obtain counsel.
3. Whether a six-month actual suspension, conditioned on completion of six hours of specified continuing legal education, was the appropriate sanction.

Disposition

other