|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
Governor Taft Reprimanded
2006-1561. Disciplinary Counsel v. Taft, 2006-Ohio-6525.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 06-023. Robert A. Taft II, Attorney Registration No. 0018186, is publicly reprimanded.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Lundberg Stratton, J., not participating.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-6325.pdf
(Dec. 27, 2006) Gov. Robert A. Taft II was publicly reprimanded by the Supreme Court of Ohio today for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility arising from the conduct that resulted in his misdemeanor criminal convictions for failure to report gifts he received on his annual financial disclosure statements.
Taft has been a licensed attorney in Ohio since 1976. He is currently on inactive status, which means he is registered as an attorney with the Supreme Court but does not currently practice law.
In a unanimous, per curiam opinion, the Court voted 6-0 to accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and to impose the board's recommended sanction of a public reprimand. Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton recused herself from the case.
“‘There must be no misunderstanding that the legal profession demands adherence to the highest standards of honesty and integrity; and lawyers who hold public office must be especially scrupulous in this regard,'” the Court wrote in today's opinion, quoting from the report of the disciplinary panel that considered the case.
As governor, Taft is subject to the financial disclosure provisions of R.C. 102.02, which require that certain public officials file a report each year disclosing the source of any gifts received over a $75 value.
Gov. Taft timely filed financial disclosure forms for each year he was required to do so. However, in 2005, he and his staff reviewed previous years' forms and determined that during the seven years from 1998 through 2004, he had failed to disclose the value of a number of golf outings and other events in which he had participated at no cost.
On June 14, 2005, Gov. Taft reported to the Ohio Ethics Commission that his financial filings were deficient, and the commission investigated. According to a statement of facts agreed to by Gov. Taft and the disciplinary counsel, Gov. Taft failed to report 52 gifts from 19 benefactors with a combined value of $5,682.26.
On Aug. 17, 2005, Gov. Taft was charged with four counts of knowingly filing a false disclosure statement, a first degree misdemeanor. The next day, he pleaded no contest and was found guilty. He was fined $4,000 and ordered to e-mail an apology to all state of Ohio employees and media outlets. He also repaid the sources of the formerly undisclosed gifts.
The Supreme Court's Office of Disciplinary Counsel subsequently conducted an investigation to determine whether the conduct resulting in Gov. Taft's misdemeanor convictions also constituted violations of state attorney discipline rules. Attorneys for Gov. Taft and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel entered into a consent-to-discipline agreement in which they jointly stipulated to the facts of the case, agreed that Taft's nondisclosures constituted violations of DR 1-102(A)(6), which prohibits conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer's fitness to practice law, and agreed that the appropriate sanction for this misconduct was a public reprimand.
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline reviewed the consent-to-discipline agreement submitted by the parties, agreed with its findings and recommendations, and submitted a report to the Supreme Court recommending acceptance of the agreement.
In today's decision, the Court noted that in making its recommendation of a sanction, the board took into consideration the mitigating factors that Gov. Taft had no prior disciplinary history, had a long and previously unblemished career in public service, cooperated fully with disciplinary proceedings and made timely restitution in good faith to rectify the consequences of his misconduct. In addition, the Court noted the board's conclusions that the nondisclosures were attributable to “oversight, rather than to a conscious effort to conceal certain relationships,” and that Gov. Taft had publicly acknowledged and apologized for his breach of ethical duties and had received a penalty through the criminal justice system.
The Court also cited the disciplinary board's determination that the nondisclosures “were not the result of any dishonesty or selfishness” and the Ethics Commission's finding that “no evidence suggested that respondent was given gifts as compensation in exchange for any act or omission.”
Contacts
Jonathan Coughlan, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Geoffrey Stern, 614.462.5400, for Gov. Robert A. Taft II..
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."