Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Scott

Supreme Court of Ohio

December 18, 2019

Disciplinary Counsel
v.
Scott.

          Submitted September 11, 2019

          On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2018-021.

          Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lia J. Meehan, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

          Terrence Kensley Scott, pro se.

          PER CURIAM.

         {¶ 1} Respondent, Terrence Kensley Scott, of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0082019, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2007. In an April 30, 2018 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, alleged that Scott engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation as well as illegal acts that adversely reflect on his honesty and trustworthiness. Specifically, relator alleged that Scott affixed preprinted Universal Product Code ("UPC") labels for low-cost items onto more expensive merchandise at a Walmart store and scanned the fraudulent labels to purchase items for less than their actual price.

         {¶ 2} The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors. After a hearing before a panel of the Board of Professional Conduct, the board issued a report recommending that Scott be suspended from the practice of law for six months, all stayed on the condition that he commit no further misconduct. We accept the board's findings of misconduct, but we suspend Scott from the practice of law for one year, fully stayed on the condition that he commit no further misconduct.

         Misconduct

         {¶ 3} The parties stipulate that on December 23, 2017, Scott stole multiple items from a Walmart store in Whitehall, Ohio. Before entering the store, he duplicated the UPC labels for low-cost items found in his home. He took those duplicate labels to Walmart and affixed them to more expensive items. Scott then scanned the newly affixed UPC labels at the self-checkout in two transactions and paid a total of $27.35 for items that had an actual value of $367.21.

         {¶ 4} A Walmart asset-protection associate noticed that the items Scott had scanned rang up incorrectly and notified a police officer who was working special duty at the store. The officer and the associate observed Scott scan multiple items, including electronics and rugs, that rang up as cheaper food items. After completing his transactions, Scott attempted to exit the store. The Walmart associate stopped him in the store vestibule, recovered the merchandise, and informed Scott that there was a police officer waiting outside. The officer observed Scott leave the store and identified himself as a police officer. Scott turned away from the officer, who then fired his taser, striking Scott in the back. Scott fell and hit his head on the concrete. Officers placed him in handcuffs and, upon searching him, found more than 100 additional UPC labels. Scott was transported to a local hospital, where he received several stitches before being transported to jail.

         {¶ 5} Scott was charged with misdemeanor counts of theft by deception, possession of criminal tools, and obstructing official business. On February 6, 2018, he pleaded guilty to a third-degree-misdemeanor count of criminal mischief. He received a suspended ten-day jail sentence and was ordered to pay a fine of $185. Scott paid the fine, and the case was closed.

         {¶ 6} The parties stipulated and the board found that Scott's conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty or trustworthiness) and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). We adopt these findings of misconduct.

         Sanction

         {¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.