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

Case Summaries- 23Bowling, Disciplinary Counsel v.127 Ohio St.3d 138, 2010-Ohio-5040. Decided 10/21/2010.Respondent, a magistrate of a probate/juvenile court, was charged with possession of drugparaphernalia, a fourth-degree misdemeanor and possession of marijuana, a minor misdemeanor inDecember 2008. After suffering from a debilitating stroke in March 2008, respondent, whooccasionally used marijuana on weekends, started using it every day as self-medication to alleviate someof the physical and psychological effects of the stroke. Respondent was eventually cited formisdemeanor possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. By agreement, the paraphernalia chargewas dismissed, and the possession charge was resolved by forfeiture of a $168 bond. Respondent did notplead guilty to, nor was he convicted of, any crime. Since the charge, respondent has not used alcohol orany illegal drugs; he has entered into a five-year OLAP contract, completed a two-day detox programfollowed by a four-day inpatient program, and finished an intensive 90-day outpatient program. Heattends aftercare meetings and 12-step meetings and regularly talks with his sponsor. Relator dismissedthe charged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). Respondent and relator entered into a consent-to-disciplineagreement as to a violation of Canon 2 of the former Code of Judicial Conduct and a recommendedsanction of a public reprimand. Both the panel and board accepted the consent-to-discipline agreement.There were no aggravating factors present; in mitigation, there was no prior disciplinary history, nodishonest or selfish motive, a timely good-faith effort to rectify the situation, full and free disclosure, acooperative attitude with the disciplinary proceedings, and good character and reputation. BCGDProc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). Resnick (2005) was cited as a similar case in which a justiceviolated Canon 2 based upon a single conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. The courtaccepted the consent-to-discipline agreement and ordered a public reprimand.Rules Violated: Code of Judicial Conduct (former) Canon 2Aggravation: NONEMitigation: (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: YESPublic Official: YES Sanction: Public Reprimand