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

LoDico, Disciplinary Counsel v.118 Ohio St.3d 316, 2008-Ohio-2465. Decided 5/29/2008.Case Summaries- 184Respondent committed a felony after he had already been suspended from the practice of law for18 months with six months stayed based on findings that he had engaged in unprofessional, undignified,and discourteous conduct in separate incidents before two common pleas judges. Disciplinary Counselv. LoDico, 106 Ohio St.3d 229, 2005-Ohio-4630, 833 N.E.2d 1235. Respondent stipulated to thefollowing facts and misconduct. On January 9, 2005, respondent was leaving a Canton, Ohio strip clubwhen he became involved in a physical altercation with six people in the parking lot. He pointed a .45-caliber Glock pistol with a laser sight at all six people, one at a time. He was indicted on six counts offelonious assault with a firearm specification, each a second-degree felony, and one count of carrying aconcealed weapon, a fourth-degree felony. After a bench trial, respondent was found guilty of carrying aconcealed weapon and six misdemeanor counts of aggravated menacing. He was sentenced to communitycontrol, including 180 days in the Stark County jail, five years of supervision with conditions, and a$5,000 fine. Upon notice of his conviction, the Supreme Court ordered an interim suspension from thepractice of law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4). In re LoDico, 108 Ohio St.3d 1477, 2006-Ohio-788, 842 N.E.2d 1056. The board found respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) prohibiting illegalconduct involving moral turpitude and DR 1-102(A)(6) prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects onthe lawyer‘s fitness to practice law. The Supreme Court agreed with the board‘s findings. In aggravation,respondent had prior disciplinary offenses and refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct.BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a) and (g). In mitigation, respondent did not act with a selfish or dishonestmotive, had a cooperative attitude in the disciplinary proceedings, his character and reputation, and theimposition of criminal sanctions. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b), (d), (e), and (f). The parties stipulatedthat Respondent should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and that reinstatement shouldbe conditioned upon Respondent‘s compliance with his prior disciplinary order. Respondent, however,requested the suspension be retroactive to September 21, 2006 as he had not practice law since he wassuspended previously by this court on September 21, 2005. The board recommended an indefinitesuspension without credit for time served under his interim felony suspension, and with reinstatementconditioned upon his compliance with this court‘s order in his prior disciplinary case, his OLAPcontract, and the terms of his community control sanctions. The Supreme Court agreed and so ordered.Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(6)Aggravation: (a), (g)Mitigation: (b), (d), (e), (f)Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: YESPublic Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension