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

Larkin, Columbus Bar Assn. v.128 Ohio St.3d 368, 2011-Ohio-762. Decided 2/23/2011.Case Summaries- 171Respondent was indicted for possession of cocaine and heroin and she entered a diversion program thatrequired drug and alcohol counseling, drug screening, and abstention from drug and alcohol use. Shefailed to comply with the diversion program and the trial judge returned her criminal case to the court‘sactive docket. She also failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process after her deposition. In 2010,during the pendency of disciplinary action, respondent has been sanctioned for failing to comply withcontinuing legal education requirements. A master commissioner was appointed to make findings of fact,conclusions of law, and a recommended sanction on relator‘s default motion. The facts underlyingrespondent‘s indictment arose from respondent‘s automobile accident in 2009 in which she wasseriously injured. While investigating the accident, police found a crack-cocaine pipe and used heroinsyringes in respondent‘s car. At deposition, respondent admitted to longstanding problem with drugs andalcohol and unsuccessful treatment. She also admitted that at the time of the accident she possessed drugparaphernalia containing residue of heroin and cocaine and that she was travelling to see someone whoencouraged her illegal drug use. Respondent has had no contact with OLAP since August 2007,despite relator‘s urging to contact OLAP. The master commissioner and the board found a violation ofProf.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and 8.4(h) and recommended an indefinite suspension. The court adopted thefindings of fact and conclusions of law, and the recommended sanction. In aggravation, respondentengaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses and failed to cooperate in the disciplinaryprocess after the deposition. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), and (e). The court also found a priordisciplinary record for failure to comply with attorney- registration requirements as an aggravating factor,citing Mitchell (2010) and Paulson (2006) ―(both holding that attorney-registration violations are priordisciplinary offenses pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a)).‖ BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a). Thecourt rejected the board‘s finding of imposition of other penalties as a mitigating factor, since the courtfound no evidence of other penalties or sanctions. Relator requested an indefinite suspension, citingRidenbaugh (2009), Wolanin (2009), and Young (2004), cases involving mental illness or substanceabuse, but not qualifying as a mitigating factor under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(i) through (iv).The court, citing Young (2004) which cited Johnson (2002), noted that the court‘s duty to protect thepublic but also to not deprive the public of attorney who through rehabilitation may be able to ethicallyand competently serve. The court ordered that respondent be indefinitely suspended, with reinstatementconditioned upon proof that respondent successfully completed treatment for substance abuse and iscapable of competent, ethical, and professional practice.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), 8.4(h)Aggravation: (a), (c), (d), (e)Mitigation: NONEPrior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: YESPublic Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension