Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Dukat
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
A lawyer is prohibited by the Disciplinary Rules from participating in fraudulent or dishonest schemes. Respondent’s conduct involved, at least, the tacit approval of a scheme concocted by a company’s financial officer to file a false payroll report in order to minimize the amount of workers’ compensation premium that the company was required to pay.
In this case, respondent may have thought that Lumbermen’s would soon be replaced as insurance carrier and that the deposit forfeited by Valley Systems to the insurer would approximately cover the premium payment shortfall. Nonetheless, the fact…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bar Ass'n v. CassaroOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. NewsomOhio Supreme Court · 1979
3Cited by6 opinions
- Disciplinary Counsel v. UlinskiOhio Supreme Court · 2005
- Amos v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
- Disciplinary Counsel v. DukatOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Disciplinary Counsel v. DukatOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Disciplinary Counsel v. DukatOhio Supreme Court · 1997
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.