disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Resnick, Ohio State Bar Assn. v.
128 Ohio St.3d 56, 2010-Ohio-6147. Decided 12/21/2010.
Case Summaries- 269
Respondent twice received felony convictions, once in 2006 for possession of cocaine and once in 2007
for resisting arrest and disrupting public service. As a result of the cocaine conviction, the Supreme
Court of Ohio imposed an interim remedial suspension on her law license on 1/18/2007. As to Count I,
in 2005, respondent traveled from Cleveland to Oxford for a court appearance. She rode in her car which
was driven by a male companion whom she had previous represented in a criminal case and whom she
knew had been convicted of drug-related crimes. When respondent‘s vehicle ran out of gas, a police
officer took respondent to court. Her companion remained with the vehicle, but later abandoned the
vehicle. Police had it towed after conducting an inventory search during which they discovered in the
glove compartment a change purse containing cocaine and a straw with cocaine residue wrapped
inside a page of advertisements typically found in legal advertisements, and behind the driver‘s seat they
found a small amount of cocaine in a makeup bag. On 2/14/2006, respondent was convicted of
possession of cocaine, a fifth-degree felony and placed on community control sanctions. Despite the
conviction and admitted occasional use of cocaine, respondent maintains that the cocaine was not hers.
During the disciplinary hearing she suggested that she is not guilty of the crime of possessing cocaine.
She claims her error was using poor judgment in having the male companion drive. She claimed she was
forced to because she was under the influence of asthma drugs and ordered by her physician not to drive;
that she could not get the court date continued and he was the only one she could find to drive for
her. Respondent denies that the cocaine was hers, but does admit that the makeup bag was hers. The
board agreed with the panel that this conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), and (6). As to Count II, on
10/19/2006, respondent called 9-1-1 to report that her car had been stolen. Respondent avers she
became agitated because she did not think the police responded appropriately. She testified she did not
have a good relationship with the police department and she had called them at least three times that
day regarding the stolen car. In connection with these events, respondent was indicted for nine fifth
degree felony counts of disrupting public service and one second degree misdemeanor count of resisting
arrest. At her court appearance on these charges, the judge was so concerned with respondent‘s demeanor
and erratic behavior that he ordered her to undergo a mental-competency exam. She was held for 60
days at a treatment facility in Cleveland. After being declared competent, respondent pleaded guilty to
one count of disrupting public service and one count of resisting arrest and was sentenced to
community control. During the disciplinary hearing included testimony by respondent‘s treating
psychiatrist, Dr. Cerny, but was continued by agreement of the parties to have respondent submit to an
independent psychiatric examination by Dr. Rosenbaum. Although much evidence was submitted at the
hearings regarding her mental health, the board was unsure whether she required treatment. She was
diagnosed with bipolar disorder at the treatment facility, but Dr. Cerny testified that she does not believe
that respondent has bipolar disorder. Dr. Cerny believes her behavior was caused by the use of illegal
and/or prescription drugs. There is no evidence that respondent has experienced similar symptoms since
her time at the treatment facility, that she continues to use cocaine or other illegal drugs, or that she
misuses prescription drugs. Dr. Cerny does not think she will have another manic episode unless she
abuses drugs. The doctor did not send her for substance-abuse treatment because respondent denied
using drugs after discharge from the facility and Dr. Cerny saw no evidence of drug abuse by respondent.
Respondent testified that she has been evaluated in the past and was told she does not have a substance
abuse problem. The board agreed with the panel that respondent‘s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6).
The court adopted the board‘s findings of fact and conclusions of law. In aggravation, respondent acted
with a dishonest and selfish motive, and was convicted of multiple offenses. BCGD Proc.Reg.
10(B)(1)(b) and (d). In mitigation, respondent had no prior disciplinary record, exhibited a cooperative
attitude, and had been under interim suspension since 1/18/2007, due to her felony conviction. BCGD
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (f). Relator sought disbarment. The board agreed with the panel‘s
recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension retroactive to the date of her interim
suspension,1/18/2007, with conditions for reinstatement that she participate in intensive and long term
therapy (as recommended by Dr. Rosenbaum) resulting in a report that she is fit to practice law; show