Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Akron Bar Ass'n v. Finan
Citation: 118 Ohio St. 3d 106Docket: No. 2007-2300
Court: Ohio Supreme Court; April 23, 2008; Ohio; State Supreme Court
Christine D. Finan, an attorney from Akron, Ohio, faced disciplinary action initiated by the Akron Bar Association for two violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reviewed a consent-to-discipline agreement and recommended a public reprimand, which was adopted. Finan represented Donna Orellana in a domestic relations case against her former husband, Mark Orellana. She filed a contempt motion alleging non-compliance with a parenting plan and submitted an affidavit that falsely bore Orellana’s signature, which she notarized herself. During a court hearing, Mark Orellana challenged the affidavit, leading Finan to acknowledge factual errors and admit to signing her client's name. The court ultimately dismissed the contempt motion due to her misconduct. The board determined that Finan's actions violated DR 1-102(A)(5), which prohibits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and DR 1-102(A)(6), which prohibits conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law. In her defense, mitigating factors were agreed upon, including Finan's clean disciplinary record, good character, absence of dishonest motives, timely efforts to rectify her misconduct, and cooperation during the proceedings. Consequently, both parties concurred that a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction, which the board accepted. The Supreme Court confirmed the board's findings and recommended sanction, publicly reprimanding Finan and taxing the costs to her.